Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Coventry (Housing Expenditure)

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been his Department's allocation to Coventry city council for housing expenditure each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): The housing investment programme allocations made to Coventry city council each year, beginning with 1978–79, have been £13·3 million, £13·7 million, £10·5 million, £7·7 million, £12·2 million, £8·1 million, £8·9 million, £7·7 million and for 1986–87, £7·3 million. Comparisons between years can be misleading, because since 1981–82 local authorities have been able to add to their spending power through the use of the prescribed proportion of their capital receipts.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that identifiable modernisations, repairs and renovations for Coventry now total about £150 million and that the Government's drip feed of £7·25 million means that many urgently needed repairs will not be completed until well into the next century? There is male unemployment of between 20 and 50 per cent. in the wards of Coventry, South-East, and not many of my constituents can afford £400,000 Barratt retirement homes in Dulwich.

Mr. Patten: That question was put by the hon. Gentleman with characteristic moderation. First, the hon. Gentleman should explain to his constituents that the Government's allocation of housing money is but one part of the resources that are available to the city council. Another substantial source of funds can be from the councils own accumulated capital receipts, and I understand that it is planning to make use of them.
Secondly, and lastly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage Coventry city council to do what I am advised it is already considering enthusiastically, namely, co-operating with private sector interests to bring more much-needed money into Coventry. We shall do all that we can to help the council through the urban housing renewal unit.

Mr. Marlow: In the words of Opposition Members, are not some of the feudal estates that are run by some municipal authorities, including Coventry, among the great environmental disasters of the century? If we want

to help the constituents of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), as we do, the sooner and the more we get the private sector into the management of public housing, the better.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Some Labour authorities, to do them justice, do care and are trying extremely hard to bring all the private resources that are available to bear and into use. The Oldham and Salford authorities are two examples. Unfortunately, Labour-controlled city councils in other areas seem unable sometimes to manage their own housing stock properly. Yesterday—[Interruption.]—in Stoke-on-Trent, Central —the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is not in his place—I saw an 80-year-old widow who had been left in the most awful conditions.

Mr. Park: Those who are waiting to have their houses made habitable in Coventry or to gain accommodation for the first time—there are several thousands of them—will not be comforted by the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). In an earlier debate, the Minister may know that I spelt out the time that it would take to complete some of the schemes on which Coventry is already engaged—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Park: I appreciate that you are calling me to order, Mr. Speaker, but you allowed the Minister to continue with his reply.

Mr. Speaker: I was worried that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) might continue to recount a previous debate.

Mr. Park: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Minister take into account the fact that the figures that he has produced show a steady deterioration? Is he aware that Coventry city council negotiated with private builders to refurbish some of the high-rise blocks of flats that need revamping, including the installation of central heating? After months of negotiations they backed out, and the city council has had to start all over again.

Mr. Patten: I apologise for taking so long over my previous answer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman wi,1 not attempt to inhibit the delicate negotiations between the city council and a number of potential developers, which are aimed at bringing much needed private money into Coventry. It is that money, with perhaps the 'help of my Department and the urban housing renewal unit, that can lead to the solution of many of the problems to which he referred.

Exchequer Grant (Local Authorities)

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the aggregate Exchequer grant settled on local authorities in England for 1986–87 will be paid to (a) local authorities in London, (b) Liverpool and (c) Leeds; and what difference this is from the percentage of the same three areas for 1985–86.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The amount of grant to be paid to the authorities will depend on their own decisions on spending in 1986–87.

Mr. Hughes: No one can thank the Minister for that most unhelpful answer. I shall now ask her a


supplementary question which I hope she will answer. First, will she give the lie to the fact that the Government's rate support grant settlement has resulted in a reduction in the moneys given to the metropolitan districts outside London? The Library document confirms that fact. Secondly, will she confirm that Leeds will be £40 million short on the Government's own estimate of need, and that if Liverpool imposes the rate-capped settlement it will be unable to do other than cut services? The money has gone, not to the inner cities as a whole, but only to those where there are to be elections next May.

Mrs. Rumbold: It is incontrovertible, from the document that is available in the Library, that such money as has been diverted has been diverted to the cities. I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will confirm that fact.
The hon. Gentleman asked for figures relating to Liverpool and Leeds. Last year, Leeds city council received a block grant of £111·9 million. This year it is expected to receive £124·5 million. Last year, Liverpool city council received £119·4 million. this year it will receive £137·6 million.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not got off to a very good start today. I ask for brief questions.

Dr. Hampson: When my hon. Friend made that response, I am sure that she was not trying to mislead the House. Does she agree that as Leeds has inherited many of the county council's functions, about 2·5 per cent. less than last year is coming to Leeds from Government resources? Although some cities have benefited—and we believe that that is right — many cities under Conservative control have not.

Mrs. Rumbold: The inner city problems that face Leeds are already taken into account in its grant-related expenditure assessment. It loses grant-related expenditure overall in its 1986–87 settlement because of the technical improvements that we have made to the education and personal social services grant-related expenditure. However,the resulting grant loss is more than balanced by the grant gains to Leeds as a result of the abolition of targets and the consequent changes in the block grant mechanism.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister confirm that the amount of money that the Government are making available to Leeds does not adequately take into account the transfer of services from the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council? Will the Minister confirm the when that is taken into account, Leeds will be facing a cut?

Mrs. Rumbold: I repeat that the resulting grant loss which I analysed for my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) is more than balanced by the grant gains which go to Leeds as a result of the abolition of targets and the consequent changes in the block grant mechanism. The money that has been allocated to Leeds will more than adequately take up the effects of abolition.

Mr. Forman: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new appointment. Is she aware that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are very grateful for the measures that were taken to make some important concessions to the

outer London boroughs in connection with the London arrangements after the demise of the Greater London council?

Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The aim of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was to ensure that the financial effect of abolition per se was as neutral as possible on all successor authorities. Therefore, the successor authorities have received block grant support for their spending through the reattributed grant-related expenditure that comes from the metropolitan authorities and the Greater London council, which are to be abolished.

Rates

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet in a position to say when he plans to publish his Green Paper on rate reform.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I hope to do so next week.

Mr. Atkinson: As the rate support grant system is utterly discreditable and incomprehensible and this year continues to penalise the thrifty, will my right hon. Friend use the opportunity offered by his Green Paper to abolish it lock, stock and barrel and to replace it with a system of local government financing which will hold councillors more accountable to their electorates and broaden councils' scope to raise expenditure?

Mr. Baker: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that the purpose of any change should be to improve local accountability and to bring home to local electors the consequences of their councils' spending.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State recall the view of the Layfield committee, that local income tax offers the only realistic way in which to provide a new source of revenue for local government and to increase local accountability? If so, why is he going for a flat-rate system that will bear most harshly on those most in need?

Mr. Baker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Social Democratic party on these matters, to await my Green Paper. I understand from what he said that the SDP is now in favour of local income tax, but I think he will find that it has certain unattractive features which might become more evident the more it is examined.

Mr. Heddle: Reverting to the last question, does my right hon. Friend agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot do that. We are on this question.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that abolishing the rating system in its present form root and branch and replacing it with local income tax would increase the standard rate of tax by at least 13p in the pound? Would that not be a total disincentive to every person in the country to work?

Mr. Baker: Those are the questions that the SDP will have to answer when it formulates its proposals for reforming local government financing.

Mr. Freeson: Reverting to the first supplementary question, may I ask whether the Secretary of State intends


or expects to bring forward legislation on this major reform, for which we have waited 10 years, during this Parliament?

Mr. Baker: That depends on when the next election will be. I intend to consult widely during the coming months. We will then be able, I should think at about this time next year, to present a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals clearly so that, by the time of the next general election, all parties will be able to set out the attractions of their proposals to the electorate.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that any proposals in his Green Paper concerning the rate support grant system will be fairer to counties such as Hertfordshire? What possible morality can there be in the average rate support grant being 46 per cent., when rate support grant for a country that keeps its expenditure under control is only 13 per cent.?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable about local government finance, has put his finger on the point. One of the elements of local government finance is the system known as resource equalisation, which means that there is a substantial transfer of resources from more prosperous areas to less prosperous ones. It has been endemic in the system since 1929. My hon. Friend will find that in the Green Paper I quantify it, set out the pros and cons about whether it should remain, whether it should be reduced and over how long it should be phased out, if it should be phased out.

Mr. James Lamond: What is the point of the Government trying to improve local accountability when they have so far introduced 12 local government Bills, most of which restrict local councillors' ability to carry out the mandates on which they were elected?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of the problem. When the Green Paper comes out next week, he will see that there is a clear choice, not only for the House, but for the country, as to whether there should be more central control of local government or more local accountability. In essence, this is a constitutional question.

Mr. Ward: When my right hon. Friend brings his proposals for reforming the rating system before the House, will he bear in mind that, while many of us accept the need for some redistribution, there is great resentment in the shire counties because money is being transferred to areas where there is no local accountability and large sums are squandered on hare-brained schemes?

Mr. Baker: I agree. The whole thrust of my proposals, as my hon. Friend will see, is to give local authorities greater responsibility for making their own spending decisions so that they can say to their electors, if they want to support proposals, that it will cost them so much. At the moment, when a local elector goes into the polling booth and makes a judgment on his council, he finds it exceedingly difficult to judge whether the council is efficient or inefficient and whether it is thrifty or not, because of the complicated grant system.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following the recent announcement on rate support grant settlements.

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government (Mr. William Waldegrave): I think it is fair to say that my right hon. Friend and I have both received numerous representations.

Mr. Pike: The Secretary of State will have received representations regarding section 137, which many local authorities principally use to attract industry, to keep jobs in their areas and to assist voluntary organisations. Because of the way that the RSG is being changed, many councils will have insufficient money to maintain those important services. Will the Minister give me an assurance that until the Widdicombe committee has reported on these aspects he will guarantee that councils can maintain those important programmes?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman refers to a real problem, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) has met the Association of Metropolitan authorities to discuss. I cannot yet give the assurances that the hon. Gentleman seeks. We are still gathering facts about the matter, but I recognise the problem.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that supporting the Government on this issue is hazardous in the extreme? After nearly 16 years as a Member of this House I find myself in the extraordinary position of being criticised by the Christchurch and East Dorset Conservative Association for voting in favour of the rating proposals which were passed on Monday. Will he make it quite clear that, the Government having made their proposals known in Dorset, it is up to the Dorset county council to decide whether to introduce a large, medium or small rate increase this year?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The most crucial decision is the spending level of the council, and that is up to the local authority. I confirm what he said.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister confirm that he has had representations from Leeds city council pointing out that not only will the net amount that it will receive go down on comparable terms this year, but that in comparison with the other metropolitan districts it has been treated particularly badly? Will he explain to the council when it comes to see him and his colleagues on 3 February why it has lost so much money compared with other local authorities?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure that the situation in Leeds is quite as bad as the hon. Gentleman sets out, but I have no doubt that when the council meets my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or any other Minister, it will have the matter properly explained to it.

Mr. Powley: I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to a statement made in my constituency on Friday last by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said publicly that were a Labour Government to be brought back into office after the next general election they would immediately pay back to the shire counties the sum of £13 billion, which the Labour party allegs has been shifted from them by the Government? Is that not a most irresponsible statement? Is it not made even more irresponsible in the light of the fact that under the regression analysis basis the Labour Government shifted vast resources from the shire counties to the inner cities?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's question confirms what I have long suspected to be the truth—that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is anxious not to find himself part of a future Labour Government who would be an embarrassment to him. Therefore, he is making a number of irresponsible comments to ensure that there is no danger of that.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Has the Minister received representations from the leader of Sefton council, a Conservative council which is a paragon of underspending virtue? The leader of the council, Mr. Ron Watson, supported rate capping on the basis that when the over-spending councils were dealt with there would be more money available for low-spending councils, such as Sefton. He is wondering where that money is. The rate support grant settlement will mean a 20 per cent. rate increase in an authority which has already cut services to the bone.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that inner city authorities have gained from the settlement. There are still problems for all authorities, because we are still seeking economies, even from reasonably low spenders. However, this year's settlement has brought more help than the previous system, even to authorities such as Sefton.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Colvin.

Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dr. Cunningham: On the previous question to the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I expressed a wish to be called.

Mr. Speaker: It was my fault. I did not see the signals. I apologise.

Mr. Straw: I refer to the stunt performed by the Secretary of State on Monday, when he published the grant recycling 1986–87 paper in which he tried unsuccessfully to persuade his hon. Friends about the amounts that would be received under grant recycling. Will the Minister answer the question that he dodged on Monday? What assumption about increases in local authority spending were included in that document? Was it 9 per cent.? If not, what was the percentage?

Mr. Waldegrave: I dodged no question and no answer. There was an assumption as to what would be the effect of a pool of £400 million.

Waste Management (Report)

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the document produced by the Commission on Environmental Pollution entitled "Managing Waste—the Duty of Care".

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend announced on 10 December last a number of measures which the Government propose to take to tighten up control over waste disposal. Some of those respond directly to recommendations in the latest report of the Royal

Commission on environmental pollution. The Government are considering the other recommendations and will be responding fully later this year.

Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the report, on page 160, suggests that the regulatory authorities should be more ready to communicate the findings of their investigations to the public in an open-minded way? Does he agree with the recommendation that waste companies should be more ready to make the results of monitoring of waste plants public, in order to allay anxiety that can arise from the veil of secrecy which at present overrides the monitoring results?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has become an expert on such matters as a result of events in his constituency. His comments are correct. The Government intend to try to achieve further openness in these matters. A working group is trying to find ways to do that without loading intolerable burdens on industry. I accept the policy direction in which my hon. Friend wishes to move.

Mr. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's failure to deal with pollution of the environment has been absolute? Over the years they have done nothing to carry out the proposals in the reports of commissions. Is it not time that they faced the problem of pollution? Unless we are careful, the entire nation will be dying stage by stage, because the Government have not begun to deal with the problems of pollution.

Mr. Waldegrave: I think the hon. Gentleman has shot himself in what the late Fats Waller called one of his pedal extremities. The Government moved quickly to accept many of the recommendations of the most recent Royal Commission on environmental pollution. For over 10 years the previous Labour Government—of which the hon. Gentleman was a member for a time—failed to introduce part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which we have now moved to implement.

Dr. David Clark: May I draw to the Minister's attention paragraphs 5.28 and 5.29 of the Royal Commission's report, which refer to the experiments and small-scale developments in two of the most illustrious universities in the country—Manchester and Salford—which have been so greviously hit by the Government? They are developing a plan of extracting oil from domestic refuse. Will the Minister pay heed to those paragraphs, and not wait for a wider response? Will he encourage those two universities to escalate those experiments to a pilot scheme?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot respond to him off the cuff now, but I listened with sympathy to what he said.

Parish and Town Councils (Rates)

Mr. Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environmet how many parish or town councils raised a rate of 3p or more in the last year for which records are available; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: About 1,900 in 1985–86.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her answer. Do she and the rest of the Government appreciate that there is no control whatsoever of parish or town council precepts? They can raise any rate they like, rate


capping or not, and the district councils have to bill for that. Unless the Government take some form of action shortly, every town and parish council in the country is liable to fall into the hands of a Bernie Grant, a Hatton or a Livingstone, and thereby create absolute mayhem for the Government.

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the potential expenditure of parish councils. I believe that that matter is under discussion and will be part of my right hon. Friend's Green Paper.

Mr. Boyes: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), may I ask what proposals the Government have for ensuring that district councils are not penalised for such expenditure by parish councils, for example those in my area, where the parish councils might spend a total of over £1 million? In future years, will the Minister consider informing district councils of the amount allowed in GREA for parish council precepts?

Mrs. Rumbold: The most effective way of ensuring that parish councils keep down their expenditure can be drawn to the attention of the electorate at the time of an election. I suggest that the ballot box is the most effective way of controlling that expenditure.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that she is aware of the great weight of responsible opinion in my suburban constituency that is hostile to having a framework of parish councils imposed upon it?

Mrs. Rumbold: I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Sports Council

Mr. Pendry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss the future development of sports funded by the council.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I meet regularly the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss issues relating to the development of sports. We last met one week ago.

Mr. Pendry: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he discuss the considerable financial loss to sport when the Greater London council and metropolitan counties are abolished? How will he attempt to explain to the chairman how the miserly £5 million grant from the Government to the Sports Council can meet the requirements of sporting projects currently financed by those authorities, especially when the Sports Council estimates a shortfall of £8 million, plus 23 staff, and the Central Council of Physical Recreation estimates a shortfall of as much as £30 million?

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that recently the Sports Council grant was increased to £37 million from £30·6 million, which is the biggest increase that has ever been given to the Sports Council. It represents an increase of 150 per cent. since the Government came into power. The money that the Sports Council holds is in its hands to disburse. I remind the hon. Gentleman that district and borough councils make the greatest contribution to sport, not the Sports Council.

Mr. John Carlisle: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he make it clear that the visit to South Africa by 12 women cricketers on holiday was in no way on the instruction of the Women's Cricket Association, so the Women's Cricket Association was wrong to ban—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will see that the question is about sports funded by the Sports Council.

Mr. Carlisle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The threat that is now being made, that the Sports Council's grant may be withdrawn from the Women's Cricket Association because of that visit is spurious and should not have been made, because the grant will still go ahead despite the

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend said that the ladies were in South Africa on holiday. If they happen to play cricket while they are there I have no control over that, nor does the Sports Council. The Government entirely support the Gleneagles agreement and all governing bodies are well aware of that.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware of the growing anger of Members of Parliament from rugby league playing areas about the attitude of the rugby union authorities to amateur rugby league players? Will he make it clear to the chairman of the Sports Council that no further taxpayers' money will be made available to the rugby union authorities unless they drop the particularly obnoxious form of apartheid that they practice?

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the Sports Council is doing all it can to bring about conciliation between the British Amateur Rugby League Association and the Rugby Football Union. I have no locus in the matter. It is entirely a matter for the Sports Council, as it is also entirely a matter for the Sports Council as to how it distributes its funds.

Sir Paul Hawkins: Rather than pay an increased grant to the Sports Council, would it not be better to give that money to the shire counties and let them spend it on what they wish?

Mr. Tracey: The money that local authorities get for sports purposes is included within the local environmental services grant. Expenditure on sport and recreation in local authorities is running at over £700 million a year. The Sports Council grant is for specific purposes. I have no hesitation in saying that both the Sports Council and local authorities are disbursing their funds correctly.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: So that the Sports Council may be clear about how it is to spend the extra money, will the Minister confirm that the Government regard the British Amateur Rugby League Association—many young men in my constituency play that game—as a bona fide amateur organisation?

Mr. Tracey: I am sure that the British Amateur Rugby League Association is an amateur body.

Mr. Tony Banks: Like the Government Front Bench.

Tillingham Hall Development (Inquiry)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the public inquiry with regard to the proposed Tillingham Hall development to commence; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tracey: The public inquiry is due to start on 18 March. As the case is currently before the Secretary of State, it would not be appropriate for me to make a statement at present.

Mr. Proctor: In view of the widespread interest in the proposed Tillingham Hall development in the green belt at Maldon in my constituency, and the widespread opposition to it throughout the constituency, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the delay between the end of the public inquiry and the ministerial decision on the appeal will be kept to a minimum?

Mr. Tracey: Yes, Sir.

Dr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the Government appear to be creating the impression that they do not care about the maintenance of the green belt? Do the Government support developers' proposals for a ring of private enterprise new towns around London in the green belt? Does not the Government's White Paper, published last year, reinforce the view that they want to see an erosion of the green belt by proposing that simplified planning zone powers should be given to private developers? May I make it clear to the Minister, the Department and the House that the Labour party is totally opposed to the creeping erosion of green belt policy?

Mr. Tracey: This is the first time that we have heard from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, but I was not aware that he had been asleep for the last few months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in a speech to the House-Builders Federation that the Government are firmly committed to the green belt and the conservation of the countryside. In an Adjournment debate in the House on 19 December I also made it clear that the Government are committed to that policy. I cannot pass judgment on individual applications until there is an application or an appeal.

Voluntary and Charitable Organisations (Funding)

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received since his appointment as Secretary of State about funding of those voluntary and charitable organisations which are presently supported by the metropolitan councils.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): At least 23.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the chaos which the Opposition predicted would follow the abolition proposals for the metropolitan counties is now beginning to develop, especially in the voluntary sector? Why have the Government changed their policy? Why are they now refusing to allow transitional grants to be given to voluntary organisations which operate wholly or for the most part in one district area? Lots of voluntary organisations are not being funded, they cannot get funds from district councils, and their future is threatened.

Sir George Young: ; There has been no change of policy. We have always made it clear that transitional grant was aimed at local schemes funded by the metropolitan counties, and not countywide schemes. Under section 48 we have given local authorities powers to set up countywide schemes, and it is for them to decide whether such schemes are needed.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many voluntary bodies funded by the metropolitan counties depended not on voluntary giving but on money from rates and taxes? Will he encourage local authorities and the Government, if it is within his right so to do, to look carefully at bodies that receive money from ratepayers and taxpayers to see how many people doing voluntary work are paid for it?

Sir George Young: Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree with what my hon. Friend says. We have made it clear that transitional grant will not be available for certain voluntary organisations currently funded by the metropolitan counties. If local councils wish to go ahead and fund with ratepayers' money, they must be held accountable for that at the next election.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the Minister aware that many local, voluntary and charitable groups face sudden and tragic extinction as a result of the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC? In the GLC area only a quarter of the money that was available from the GLC is now available by way of transitional grant. The problem is illustrated by that mecca of municipal meanness, Wandsworth, which even if it wanted to help all the voluntary and charitable groups in its area, now finds itself overspent under section 137. Will the Minister take the opportunity presented by the Local Government Bill to amend the law to do some justice to voluntary and charitable organisations?

Sir George Young: In an earlier exchange my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Local Government dealt with the issue in section 137. We are discussing it with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and it is under review. It is not the case that transitional grant was ever meant to cover the totality of GLC giving. It is extra governmental assistance on top of the resources of London, which are still available after abolition. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my pleasure at the fact that there is now progress towards a collective scheme in London that will involve a substantial sum of money.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest or sites about to be so designated have been damaged or destroyed since the introduction of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Nature Conservancy Council has advised me that since the Act was introduced just over 500 sites have been damaged. In most cases the damage was relatively minor and short-term. That can be compared to more than 5,000 sites of special scientific interest which the Nature Conservancy Council has identified.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Secretary of State aware that some of the worse cases of organised vandalism against scientific knowledge have been perpetrated by public statutory bodies? Will he now review the working of this part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act in order more effectively to restrain public bodies from their destructive intentions?

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of specific cases I shall personally investigate them, because I am as concerned as he is about the loss of and damage to these sites.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sites of special scientific interest will continue to be under threat until notification is completed? Although the Nature Conservancy Council has been greatly helped by the substantial extra funds provided by the Government, will my right hon. Friend tell us when notification will be completed?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. The chairman has said in his report that he hopes that the process of notification of the sites to all owners will be completed this year. He will be helped in that by the considerable extra funding that we have provided for the NCC this year — an extra £9·4 million. That is a substantial increase, which follows a 25 per cent. increase last year, and is money well spent.

Mr. Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman share our hopes that the loss of such valuable sites, which are extremely important parts of our natural heritage, will soon end? If that is achieved, will it not be largely due to the amending legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)? Is it not rather a pity that the Government sought to take all the credit for that advance?

Mr. Baker: I would not give the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) all the credit, but the amendment that he helped to put on the statute book last year certainly helped. However, the essence of this is the resources which the Government will make available. It is the resources which will save the sites. We have put our money where our environmental mouth is.

Home Ownership

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiatives he is taking to promote owner-occupation in the inner cities.

Mr. John Patten: A lot. Let me give some examples. We are assisting new private house building in inner cities through the urban development grant. We are financing housing association development for home ownership, with an exphasis on the inner cities. We are urging local authorities to sell their empty housing for home ownership, perhaps after renovation. We are bringing more wasted urban land into use by giving derelict land grant for land reclamation and pressing the sale of vacant public land. My Department's urban housing renewal unit is helping authorities to bring run down council housing back into use for owner-occupiers.

Mr. Spencer: Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot promote the welfare of the inner cities unless we promote owner-occupation there? Does he agree that city councils such as Leicester, which makes no provision for local home ownership, and which this year sold only enough land to the private sector to build four houses, are not showing much faith in the inner cities?

Mr. Patten: Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend. It is critical for a good social mix in the inner cities for there to be a mixed set of tenures, including owner-occupation. It is sad that councils such as Leicester should take the negative attitude that they are doing.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister agree that the greatest deterrent to home ownership in the inner cities is the extremely high level of mortgage interest rates, which are currently at risk of going even higher? What representation has he made to his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister about the impact of any increase in the level of general interest rates on mortgages?

Mr. Patten: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. The reason why so little owner-occupation is being promoted in so many inner city areas is the stupid intransigence of so many Labour authorities which refuse to make use of the opportunities available to them and refuse to co-operate, in the way that good Labour authorities such as Salford and Oldham do, with the private sector and the Government.

Mr. Steen: Will my hon. Friend consider using some of the additional money that he has made available for the inner cities to reduce the number of houses in public ownership? Does he agree that one of the best ways of doing that would be by switching the weekly rental payments for houses, maisonettes and flats to a mortgage repayment? In that way, public ownership could be switched to private ownership at a stroke.

Mr. Patten: Yes, that is an interesting idea and we shall consider it.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is all very well for well-heeled Tory Ministers to talk about owner-occupation, but what advice can be offered to the people of Newham, for example, in public sector housing, 90 per cent. of whom cannot afford a deposit for a mortgage, while the London Docklands Development Corporation is building luxury houses and flats at £50,000 and £60,000 a go? What good are they to the people of Newham?

Mr. Patten: The Department's urban housing renewal unit now has a budget of £50 million for the coming financial year to make it possible for councils such as Newham to co-operate in bringing mixed forms of tenure back into the inner cities. There is a need to promote sensible debate about the need for a better social mix in the inner city, which partly, but not wholly, involves the introduction of owner-occupation. I believe that Labour and Liberal Members of Parliament agree with that.

Mr. Lyell: Bearing in mind the large amount of empty property in the ownership of local authorities over years and years, is it not clear now that urging is not enough? Will my hon. Friend seriously consider bringing in legislation to require local authorities, whose domestic property has been empty for more than one year, to put it immediately upon the open market?

Mr. Patten: It is a scandal. My hon. and learned Friend is right. If we look at the areas where there is the highest homelessness and the most rate rebates, we find them in councils controlled by the Labour party in London. We may have to take radical action. Last July we distributed a circular giving councils the opportunity to do more to bring back into use empty property in their ownership. If they do not do that, we shall have to think again.

Mr. Alton: Given that high unemployment makes it virtually impossible for many people in the inner cities to become owner-occupiers, does the Minister agree that


housing co-operatives are a good way of promoting more ownership in inner cities? If so, what extra funds and personnel will be made available to pursue that objective?

Mr. Patten: Yes, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. The housing co-operative movement is important. It is a tragedy that councils have sometimes put barriers in the way of housing co-operatives getting going in various city areas. I hope that when we debate the Housing and Planning Bill we shall have a chance to talk about such ideas.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my hon. Friend aware that only 4,500 council houses and, surprisingly, seven council flats have been sold in the city of Leicester? Will he promote and speed the sale of all council houses and make it clear that the new arrangements for the sale of council flats should be distributed to all tenants? Is he further aware that there are now about 10,000 empty properties in the county of Leicestershire?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend will not have long to wait, I hope, for the publication of the Housing and Planning Bill, which will contain our proposals for increasing the rate of sale of flats. I am appalled to learn from him of the substantial number of empty properties in Leicestershire. I am equally appalled by the substantial land holdings that so many inner city authorities have which could be used to bring housing back into the inner cities and lead to a housing-led regeneration of some of our inner city areas.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the Government's policies have ravaged the housing and construction programmes of the city of Leicester in the public and private sectors? Is he further aware that there is no point in having land available for building if no one has the money to buy houses and if the people who have bought them are unemployed and cannot pay the mortgage? Why is he not doing anything to help the owner-occupiers of Smith houses in my constituency, who cannot have them put right because, to no small extent, of the two Tory MPs who represent the city?

Mr. Patten: I am rather confused. It was only a few weeks ago that the hon. and learned Gentleman was praising me for the action that I had taken over Smith houses in Leicester. I am sorry that he seems to have changed his tune. The trouble with city councils such as Leicester is that they do not seem to have the imagination to promote a multiplicity of forms of tenure—home ownership, housing associations, housing co-operatives and building for special needs.

Mr. John Fraser: If the Minister wants to help poorer owner-occupiers, why has his Government brought about a position where virtually every city authority, Labour and Conservative-controlled, has had to cut repair and improvement grants, which are the best way to help the rotting privately owned housing stock in our cities?

Mr. Patten: During the life of this Parliament we have already spent about £2·5 billion on improvement grants. We are spending about £500 million a year. That expenditure helps to diversify tenure in the inner cities. If one talks to tenants as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir. G. Young) did today on the Doddington estate in the constituency of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubbs), one finds that tenants wish to see their estates privatised and home ownership brought into those areas.

Urban Housing Renewal Unit

Mr. Galley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by the urban housing renewal unit; and if he will make a statement.

Sir George Young: The urban housing renewal unit is making excellent progress in helping local authorities implement a range of imaginative solutions to the problems of their rundown estates. The unit is concentrating its efforts on the 69 authorities with the worst problems, and has already visited 43 of those, offering detailed advice and assistance tailored to individual estates. A further 19 visits are planned over the next three months.

Mr. Galley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. The principles underlying the urban housing renewal unit are excellent. He will be aware, no doubt, of the delicate negotiations that are often necessary to establish a partnership between the public and private sectors to assist priority estates, such as the Abbey park estate in my constituency. Can he assure the House that early decisions will be taken, so that private developers will not be discouraged by bureaucratic delay or inadequate public sector contributions to the overall scheme, and so that the tenants at Abbey park and elsewhere can benefit sooner rather than later?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, I have written to him in response to his recent letter. I am very keen for the sort of initiative that has been described to go ahead. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly about the council's application for a community refurbishment scheme on the Abbey park estate.

Mr. Rooker: Can the Minister tell us whether the renewal unit will be giving help and advice to the landlords who have the biggest percentage of their housing stock empty, central Government, at 6.·8 per cent?

Sir George Young: As the hon. Member knows perfectly well, the urban housing renewal unit is aimed at helping local authorities. There is a separate range of intitiatives taking place in central Government to reduce the number of vacancies in central Government stocks.

Local Authorities (Planning)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to reinforce the ability of local authorities to control the planning environment in their own areas.

Mr. Tracey: In general, local authorities have, under the planning Acts, adequate powers to control and influence development where it is necessary in the public interest.

Mr. Adley: Would that were so. Is my hon. Friend aware that both Christchurch and Wimbourne district councils in my constituency are near despair at their inability to control the planning environment in their own areas and that the Department's presumption in favour of the big developers, often outsiders, whose protestations of the public interest are greeted with hollow laughter in my constituency, is strongly opposed? Is he aware that in the south-east of the county the face of Dorset is being changed, quite contrary to the wishes of the people there and of the elected councils?

Mr. Tracey: We are very well aware of the strong feelings of my hon. Friend. I seek to reassure him by telling him that only one in 25 planning applications is the subject of an appeal, and that, of appeals only about one third are successful. In determining appeals the Secretary of State is required, as is the planning authority at application stage, to have regard to the development plan, together with other material considerations.

Local Authority Public Services

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of privatisation of local authority public services.

Mrs. Rumbold: The Government remain disappointed that so few authorities have seen fit to expose their services to competition. Opportunities for increased efficiency, and savings for ratepayers, are clearly being lost.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's opposition to the privatisation of services is a reflection of its attitude that the public are there, not to be served, but as an endless source of cash for local authority workers?

Mrs. Rumbold: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is sad that more Labour-controlled authorities have not taken the opportunity, on behalf of their ratepayers, to contract out their services, since there would be undoubted savings for their ratepayers by so doing.

Capital Applications

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities concerning the level of capital applications made for 1986–87.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have received a number of letters about those capital allocations for which my right hon. Friend's Department is responsible.

Mr. Freeson: Does the Minister recall that during the past six years there has been a reduction of gross capital expenditure—which includes capital receipts—from just over £5,000 million to a current figure of about £2,500 million a year, a reduction of 50 per cent. in gross capital expenditure available? Is he further aware that in the past two years alone there has been a reduction of £1,000 million in real terms? How is it possible for local authorities to undertake repair, construction and other capital schemes, by themselves or jointly with the private sector, if there is a constant reduction in the capital available to them for housing purposes?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government have to judge the balance between public and private investment. The restraint on public investment, which of course causes problems for those public authorities, is part of the picture that has led us to have overall record investment, including public and private, in the economy at present.

Home Ownership

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the objectives of his Department's home ownership policy; how is he monitoring its effectiveness; and if he will make a statement.

Sir George Young: The objective of my Department's home ownership policy is to enable more people to own their own homes, as the overwhelming majority wish. The measure of its effectiveness is the increase of more than two million in the number of owner-occupied homes in Britain since we took office in 1979. In that time, Government policies have directly achieved the sale of more than 800,000 public sector dwellings to sitting tenants.

Mr. Thurnham: If home ownership is brought within the reach of more people, does that not enable local authorities to concentrate resources on those in greatest need?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right. If we can bring home ownership within the reach of those on the waiting list or those who are already local authority tenants, local authorities can concentrate their resources on those in need whom the private sector cannot help.

Mr. Dubs: What about the people on the waiting list who cannot afford to buy their own homes? Will the Minister comment on the policies of local authorities, including Wandsworth council, which are selling off many empty council properties to people who are not on the waiting list, thus saying to people who are homeless, badly housed, overcrowded and living in tower blocks "You have no chance of better housing in your lifetime"?

Sir George Young: I spent the morning in the hon. Member's constituency of Battersea. The threat to security of tenure is not to the tenant, but to the hon. Gentleman, as a result of the imaginative policies pursued by the local authority. When estates are privatised and flats are sold, they are offered in the first instance to those on the waiting list or to those who are already in local authority accommodation, who have the benefit of discounts. In general, those are the people who buy privatised property.

Standing Committee (Casting Vote)

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that arose in Standing Committee this morning. The Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments sat this morning to consider the Local Government Reorganisation (Transitional Provisions) Order 1985, which deals with transitional powers as a result of the abolition of the Greater London council at the end of March.
At the end of the debate, when the Question was put that the instrument be considered by the Committee, there was a tie of seven votes for the Government and seven votes for the Opposition. The Chairman of the Committee cast his casting vote with the Government. A perusal of "Erskine May" does not appear to reveal any precedent to suggest that it is appropriate for a casting vote to be used in that way. I make no criticism of the Chairman. However, I understand from the advice that I have taken since then, that such a case is extremely rare. I ask your guidance about whether it would be appropriate in future cases of a tie to follow the precedent that allows the matter, if the Government permit, to be raised again on the Floor of the House, rather than to be defeated by the casting vote, which precludes further debate.

Mr. Speaker: I have no responsibility for what goes on in Standing Committees. That is not a matter for me.

Dr. David Owen: On a point of order—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was on the Committee—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: But this is on the same point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not care. I did not call the hon. Member.

Cabinet Minutes

Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The country is agog as speculation continues in newspapers and on the radio about the naming of civil servants. Will the Leader of the House make a statement about how the Government intend to handle the matter, which is causing grave concern? It should not be possible for civil servants to be named in such a way, and for no discussion to take place in the House on the crucial matter of the Cabinet Secretary's inquiry in to the leak.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had no notification from the Government that they intend to make a statement on the matter today.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Arising out of column 1153 of Hansard of 15 January 1986, could we have some explanation whether Miss Colette Bowe consulted the Solicitor-General or the people in the Royal Courts of Justice before giving information to the Press Association?

Mr. Speaker: I know nothing about that matter. I have not had a chance to look up column 1153, but I do not think that the matter is for me.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there no way that the procedures of the House can accommodate the present position? It is being widely reported that a senior civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry has been given immunity from prosecution. That was reported last night on the radio, and was the first news item today. Yet no statement is to be made to the House by either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General. With respect, it is an abuse that when such matters take place and are widely reported Ministers give the House no information of any sort about them. Therefore, some arrangement should be made so that we can have a statement later today. We should not have to wait until tomorrow. We should have a statement later today, either from the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you have agreed that it is part of the duty of the House to protect people who are in the Government service and who, by virtue of their office, cannot speak for themselves publicly. You will also be aware, not least from the proceedings that we have just heard, that strong rumours are circulating about the identity of a person who may or may not have been responsible for leaking the letter from the Solicitor-General's office. Because of the duty, which we must in all honour discharge, it is important that we have a conclusive statement from that Government. If the rumours are inaccurate, unjust and irreparable damage may be done to that person's career. On the other hand, if those rumours are accurate, there will plainly be implications relating to the orders given to such an individual which will have wide application for the conduct of the order of the House. I hope that you can prevail on the authorities concerned so that we have a full and frank statement to clarify the matter.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that all the procedures associated with the inquiry concerning the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter have not been completed. Meanwhile, I suggest that the question of a Government statement should be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Winnick: For today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Skinner: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last week we made many requests for statements on the Westland affair. The Tory Front Bench told us that there was nothing to worry about and that everything was in order. As a result of that, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had to demand that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry come to the House later. We are going through the same routine again this week. Today we have almost a replica of what happened then. Because some hon. Members accused the Government of a cover-up, we managed, belatedly, to get the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the Dispatch Box and, finally, to have a debate. At the weekend there was another cover-up, when Mr. Lygo and the rest of them were bought off.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Skinner: You are placed in an invidious position, Mr. Speaker, because the Government are refusing to make a proper statement. As a result, we are asking for a private notice question so that we can draw some truth from the Government. Apparently that is not to be granted, so we are back to square one. We shall demand the truth from this tawdry Government because they have covered it up from the beginning, and the truth will out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am deeply grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about my position, and I feel it strongly.

Mr. Kinnock: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has heard what the Leader of the House had to say. He and I and the House are at one in respecting the efficiency of the usual channels. However, I hope that the Leader of the House will acknowledge that, of its very nature, this matter will not, and cannot, be resolved through the usual channels, and that there must be an agreement on the procedure for dealing with it. Ultimately, this is a matter that must be settled in the House of Commons by a statement detailing the Government's views and actions.

Dr. Owen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be reasonable for the Leader of the House to say that a statement will be made to the House today? We want to hear that statement today, not tomorrow.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The day before yesterday, I raised a point of order, on which you ruled yesterday. You ruled in my absence because I was, unfortunately, in a Select Committee.
In your ruling, you said that the passage in question in the Cabinet minutes, which I did not bring to the Chamber on that occasion, described what happened at a meeting on 17 October last between the Secretary of State— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not now going to challenge my ruling.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, was most reasonably based on all the facts and information that were placed before you by those whom you consulted. I put it you, Mr. Speaker, that there is one document which you did not see and which you were not allowed. to see, and that is the document that I have here. It is that section of the Cabinet minutes that precisely concerns the point of order.
I have not been given the opportunity to —[Interruption.] The minute says:
Sir John said that he was well aware of the Government's preference for a European minority shareholding in Westland, and attached weight to that preference".
The minute continues:
The Secretary of State noted what Sir John said. He said a European minority shareholding would invoke the commercial and political interests of the Government".
The quote by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the Dispatch Box was from that minute. I have underlined on the minute that passage from which he quoted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to
the Government's preference for a European minority shareholding in Westland.
He then
said that a European minority shareholding was in both the commercial and political interests of the Government.
We therefore have a direct quote. We do not have a paraphrase.
In light of the fact that I have this document in my possession, I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would once again look at your ruling yesterday, because you did not have this information available to you at that time. If you did so, you would know the implications if a full statement and the minute were made available to the House. The eyes of hon. Members would be opened in a way that the Select Committee has not been able to do.

Mr. Speaker: I ruled against the background of the information that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) brought to my attention. I have no authority to send for the Cabinet minutes, and I have no knowledge of them. My ruling stands.

Mr. David Steel: May I refer to the previous point of order, which we have not satisfactorily resolved? Another hon. Member referred, I think improperly, to matters concerning private notice questions. What the Leader of the House said a few minutes ago is what we have all been advised privately—that the inquiries are not yet complete. Surely the Leader of the House should be made to say that, if these inquiries are completed today, they should be reported to the House today. It would be intolerable if we read in tomorrow's papers leaks of a leaks inquiry.

Later—

Mr. John Morris: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. We are aware of the precedent that, if a Minister quotes from a document, the whole document should be placed


before the House, If, however, a Minister paraphrases a document, the same considerations do not apply. How can you, and hon. Members, reach conclusions on these matters unless the original quotation is before us? How do you reach your conclusions, while taking account of the precedent that the whole document should be laid before the House?
New considerations now arise. As I understand it—I may be wrong—the quotation is now in the possession of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. It would appear that it is on exactly the same lines as the material—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Word for word.

Mr. Morris: I stand corrected—it agrees word for word with the words that the Secretary of State used in the House. It seems that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quoting from a document. That is unanswerable. I find it difficult in those circumstances to understand how a different conclusion could be reached.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will not seek to draw the Chair into what is, after all, a political argument. I ruled yesterday on the evidence that was brought before me by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no authority to send for Cabinet documents. That is not within my responsibility. I ruled on the matter yesterday and I reaffirm that that ruling stands.

Mr. John Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to you, Mr. Speaker—the last thing that I would wish would be to draw you into any conflict involving this matter—I think that the House is entitled to know whether the rule still stands. If a Minister quotes, inadvertently or deliberately, from a Cabinet paper, Cabinet minute or any other paper, does the rule still stand? That is the point that I seek to make.

Mr. Speaker: The rule was repeated by the hon. Member for Workington yesterday when he read it out in full. I can also read it out in full, if the Clerk finds it in time. The rule is perfectly plain. If there is a direct quotation, it is necessary to lay the document; if there is a paraphrase, that is not necessary. I ruled yesterday on the evidence before me that there was a paraphrase, and that ruling stands.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that last Thursday some confusion was caused because of an inadvertent misunderstanding that could have arisen in response to the matter as it was then raised by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The Chair can be placed in an invidious position because a Minister can quote from an official document to render authority to a particular statement, and in between the time that it is used in the House and it finds itself in Hansard, the Minister, for political reasons, can change the status of the quotation simply by removing the quotation marks and saying that it is a paraphrase of what took place.

It will be obvious to you, Mr. Speaker, that a problem arises when you are in the position of ruling that a document is not an official document that has been precisely quoted to the House when in fact it is, and that has not been made obvious to you by the decision of a Minister to ensure that you are not acquainted with that fact.
We are not seeking your involvement, Mr. Speaker, in political contention between the two sides of the House. We wish to remove the possibility of your involvement in that contention by ensuring that, where there is an exact match of words between an official document and the words used in the House by a Minister, the normal rule is followed and the document becomes the property of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can say any more than I have. I have no knowledge of what goes on in Cabinet and I have no knowledge of Cabinet minutes. I always understood that Cabinet minutes were entirely secret. It is not possible for me to know whether Ministers are quoting from Cabinet minutes. I could not possibly know that.

Dr. Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has made a serious statement and he now has documentary proof of a Cabinet Sub-Committee. If the hon. Gentleman gives the document to you, Mr. Speaker, and you find that he is accurate in what he said and that the words do coincide, surely you are then entitled to ask the Government whether it is an official document. If it is an official document, surely the normal rules of the House should apply and it should be placed in the Library.

Mr. John Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The short point is this. If this is a direct quotation, should not the Government table the document?

Mr. Speaker: It would be up to the Government to decide whether to do that. There is no point in my keeping on repeating that I am not party to what goes on in Cabinet. I have no idea whether the Secretary of State was using words in a Cabinet minute and my judgment, on the evidence placed before me, was that his words were a paraphrase.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House understands the reason for your ruling yesterday. It was made, to use your own phrase, on the "basis of the evidence laid before me". My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is now laying fresh evidence before you. On the basis of the evidence that was laid before you yesterday, your original ruling could stand, but on the basis of the fresh evidence you are in a position to make a fresh ruling.

Mr. Speaker: That is perfectly reasonable. If the hon. Member for Workington were to submit that to me, I should have an opportunity to look into it, but I am not prepared to rule on it now.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Benn: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall give you a copy.

Mr. Skinner: That is right.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall also lay it on the Table. You say, Mr. Speaker, that you took the decision on the evidence that was placed before you. However, prior to that, you also said that you were unable to consult the Cabinet minutes. I am wondering what evidence has been placed before you that allows you to arrive at that decision.

Mr. Speaker: The evidence that the hon. Gentleman gave me.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, with great respect, suggest that the issue is not a matter between the Government and the Opposition. It is a matter as to whether there are two classes of Members: those who are subject to the rules that are laid down by the Government and every other hon. Member. When you were elected Speaker you laid claim to the ancient privileges of the House, one of which is that the most favourable construction should be put upon all our proceedings. If it is clear that the Government are operating under different rules which exempt them from the rules of the House, that is a matter for the House and for you. It is not a matter of inter-party controversy.

Mr. Speaker: The point I was seeking to make was that I am fully aware that this is a matter of high political controversy. What is disturbing is that Mr. Speaker is being drawn into some of these arguments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am perfectly prepared, and it is absolutely right that I should be, to discharge my duties fully and fearlessly, and I shall so do, but I hope that the House will not draw me into what is, after all, a political argument.

Mr. John Morris: This is not a political argument. This is a matter for the House of Commons as a whole. According to "Erskine May", the rule on page 433 says:
A Minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table.
There are two considerations. First, we wish to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, upon how this rule may be put into effect. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has handed you a document that purports to be the source of the quotation, and in exactly the same terms. Will you now be good enough to give us guidance on giving effect to the rule? Since the matter may need further time for consideration, perhaps you could do so later today or tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's key point purports to he that I shall need to look into this matter.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, is it helpful?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, exceptionally helpful, as far as you are concerned. You are well aware that, from the very beginning, this has been a matter between the Opposition and the Government. You have been caught in the middle. It has been revealed today that what purports to be a Cabinet document has been referred to and laid on the Table. If it is valid, the whole of that Cabinet document must be laid on the Table. There is a problem, which you spotted earlier: how do we manage to find out whether the document of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is correct? I put it to you that it would not be the first time that the House has set up a Committee to examine the validity of a document. When you consider this matter today in order to report back to the House, I suggest that you must consider setting up a Committee to test the validity of my hon. Friend's document so that the whole of the Cabinet document may be laid on the Table, when more of the truth will emerge. I put it to you that that would be the sensible way forward. It would ensure that you are not caught in the middle of a politically charged argument between an Opposition and a Government who are trying to evade the truth and their responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps one day he will be in a position to exercise the heavy responsibilities that I have.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I do believe that you have been somewhat misled, Mr. Speaker. In this exchange, everybody, including yourself, has referred to the document being a Cabinet minute. However. it is clear, even from the remarks of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that this is not a Cabinet minute. It is a minute by his private secretary about a meeting the Secretary of State held with the industrialist Sir John Cuckney. It is exactly the same as the minute which has already been released by the Government about a meeting the Secretary of State had with Sir Raymond Lygo.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that there is much profit in continuing this, as I do not know, and I shall have to look into it.

Privilege

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I asked your advice on a matter relating to your authority. I asked whether you would agree to place in the Library the document "Questions of Procedure"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Member proceeds too far, may I say that I do not think he has yet received my letter on this matter.

Mr. Benn: I have received it.

Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Member knows, the document involves a matter of privilege. I dealt with it in the normal way. It would not be in order for the right hon. Member to refer to it.

Mr. Benn: In that case, may I refer to what you said yesterday, Mr. Speaker? You said to me that advice was available elsewhere on the document's status and on the coverage for privilege afforded to the document and to me.
I have now sought that advice. I have decided that, in view of the restrictions listed in the document by successive Prime Ministers, which place other Members of the House who are or who have ever been Ministers, under restriction, it is in the interests of the House that all hon. Members should have access to it and that it should not be restricted to those hon. Members who now serve on the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service. I am therefore ready to supply a copy of the document to any hon. Member who wishes to have it. I hereby formally claim privilege both for the document and for myself in providing it to other hon. Members as a proceeding in Parliament. I have not and shall not supply copies to any person who is not a Member.
I have sought advice also on the situation that would arise if, this afternoon, the Sub-Committee decides at any stage to go into secret session during my evidence. If that occurs, I shall, for the same reason, ask leave to withdraw forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: Any action that the right hon. Member takes will be entirely on his own responsibility. As the right hon. Member has raised this matter, I say to him that I have no authority to permit any private Member to place any document in the Library.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was one of those who received this document, and I read it carefully. On one occasion, I was informed from Moscow that I could not appear on a television programme. I was informed also that I could not write my weekly column for the Walton Times. Incidentally, I ignored that advice. May I ask why you, Mr. Speaker, as the custodian of the interests of hon. Members, cannot ask for such a document to be brought before the House? This would enable hon. Members who could be Ministers in the future and able to obtain such documents to be acquainted with the sort of information they are expected to swallow by the Government of the time, whether they like it or not, even though those hon. Members are elected by the people. I ask you to consider your decision on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I do not need to consider my decision. The principle is that the Speaker cannot authorise the laying of any document in the Library. If he did so, the document would be under the protection of the Speaker. That is not my responsibility. Right hon. and hon. Members must do what they think fit. This is a matter for them, not me.

Standing Charges (Abolition)

Mr. Michael Welsh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish standing charges for gas, electricity, water and telephone services for pensioners and persons in receipt of certain state benefits.
Many attempts have been made to bring to the attention of the House the need to help the poorest in Britain who are wrongly charged by the utilities by the imposition of standing charges on their accounts. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has brought forward a number of Bills on this issue and many right hon. and hon. Members have tried to bring relief to the poorer sections of our community by abolishing standing charges. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that standing charges which are imposed by the utilities should not be imposed on the accounts of pensioners or other unfortunate persons in receipt of certain state benefits.
Standing charges are imposed on people like a straightforward tax. The poor pay the same as the rich, but this cannot be right. Why should a pensioner in my constituency, living in a house similar to my own, pay the same standing charge? It is wrong, and immoral. I am sure that all hon. Members can see the wrong in this. If we study the percentages of income paid out in standing charges, it is only a small percentage in my case but an unacceptable percentage for a pensioner. In a country that is proud of the fact that the rich look after their more unfortunate brothers and sisters and carry a heavier burden of tax, it is right that those in a position to shoulder the heavier burden should do so. Standing charges and other fixed charges should not be imposed on those people who suffer hardship.
There are many examples of this unjust method of charging. Let me give an example. A pensioner aged 80, who received a low-user rebate which has now been discontinued, had two meters. One meter was for the outside lights so that he could see the ground in the dark. In September 1985 he used one unit on the outside meter at a cost of 5·32p. His fixed charge was £6·65, but for the total of one unit this old-age pensioner had to pay £6·70. He also had to pay another fixed charge for the meter inside the house. Thus we have a pensioner, living at one address, having to pay two fixed charges. This is intolerable and wrong. The average bill for a house is about £60, yet the standing charge is the same as that of the pensioner. No one can justify this imposition of charges on the poor.
Standing charges have not always been with us. There was no standing charge for water in general before:1976. State utilities can manage without standing charges. All the Bill seeks to do is to relieve the poorer sections of our community of this burden. There are two area water authorities that do not have standing charges—Severn -Trent and Wessex water authorities.
There has been a large increase in some standing charges. In 1979 standing charges for gas in the Severn region were levelled at £2·16p. They are now £9·90p. That is a 300 per cent. increase since 1979. An old-age pensioner whose account is £30 has a standing charge of 30 per cent. but an ordinary householder who uses more gas, has plenty of money and whose account is £100 has a standing charge of only 10 per cent. It cannot be right to ask old people to pay a higher percentage than the rich person who lives down the road.
A great deal of revenue is received from standing charges. The amount of revenue from the standing charges paid by pensioners is as follows: gas in Great Britain as a whole, £150 million; electricity in England and Wales, £135 million; water in England and Wales, £65 million. I do not say that the utilities do not need this money— although some do not. However, they are taking it from the poorest in the nation. That is the crime. If this House means to look after its citizens, it should do a Robin Hood and give to the poor, not take away.
The purpose of the Bill is to help those in need and to relieve them of a financial burden so as to enable those who form the poorer sections of our nation to lead better and fuller lives. If life is in pursuit of felicity, let us accept the Bill and bring some happiness into the lives of others. I hope that the Bill will receive the unanimous support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Welsh, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Bill Michie, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Terry Patchett, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Alec Woodall and Mr. Roy Mason.

STANDING CHARGES (ABOLITION)

Mr. Michael Welsh accordingly presented a Bill to abolish standing charges for gas, electricity, water and telephone services for pensioners and persons in receipt of certain state benefits: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985

'Nothing in this Act shall prevent the publication of material or any other action, by a local authority in exercise of its functions under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985'—.[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hope that the new clause is not controversial and that it will be supported even by Liberal and Social Democratic party Members. They voted in support of the Bill receiving a Second Reading, although the Association of Liberal Councillors opposes it. There is some division there and we are not sure what they will do this evening. I hope that they are able to support the new clause and that the Minister will. It would enable the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 to take precedence in law over this Bill if it is enacted.
The Access to Information Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and had all-party support. It started life in 1980 when we considered the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, to which I tabled amendments, which enshrined most of what the access to information Act provided. This is probably the first time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I understand that his name is not attached to the new clause. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would move the motion formally.

Mr. Jack Straw: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Roberts: I shall not start again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, it was in those debates in 1980 that the words, "Ken Livingstone" were probably first uttered in the Chamber. He was then a mere opposition councillor on the GLC and we were opposing the excesses of the Conservative-controlled GLC, under the leadership of Sir Horace Cutler, which was trying to keep information secret.
Opposition Members from London and I were able to reveal accusations of fraud in the GLC which had been covered up, but which could not have been covered up if the access to information Act had been in place. Indeed, I believe that the Act is so significant that it would probably have prevented the web of corruption surrounding the Poulson affair.
We now have this rather nasty little Bill which might destroy at a stroke all the good work done by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and others. It defines publicity as
any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public".

That definition will include an enormous amount of material. Making documents available, as required by the access to information Act, would probably constitute publication as defined in the Bill. It seems clear that that is what the Government intend.
4.15 pm
In Committee the Government published an outline of a code of practice to be issued under clause 4, which included a distinction between paid and unpaid publicity. Included among the latter were council and committee reports, consultation documents, press releases, press conference statements and media interviews. If the Bill is not amended, the intentions of the access to information Act will be frustrated. The Bill will take precedence over that Act and a council will not be able to make committee reports and background papers available if they appear "to be designed to affect, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—
(a) a political party".
A secretive council could use the Bill as a loophole to get around the access to information Act and refuse to release documents, on the ground that they are or might be political. The council would make subjective decisions about what was political, and it could suppress information to which Parliament rightly wanted the public and the press to have access. An open and conscientious council could face serious problems. If it is to fulfil the requirements of the access to information Act to release minutes, reports and papers, it will have to censor them to avoid falling foul of the Bill. This is a censorship Bill of the worst kind.
The problem extends to background papers and research documents. If a research exercise shows that Government policy has increased homelessness—any research into homelessness is bound to prove that as an academic fact rather than as a political opinion—or if increased home ownership is shown to be the result of Government policy, which is probably unlikely, it could be interpreted as capable of reasonably being regarded as likely to affect public support for a political party. The fact that the research was properly conducted, honest, true, informative rather than persuasive, and conducted by people who are not necessarily members of a political party would not matter—it would still fall foul of the Bill. The council would then be faced with a choice between refusing to make the paper available to the public, which would fly in the face of the access to information Act and leave the press and the public without the underpinning of a policy, and censoring the research to make it acceptable, which cannot be acceptable in a democracy.
The new clause would subordinate the Bill to the access to information Act, thus preserving the openness and accountability of local government. I could quote the hon. Member for Hornchurch when he introduced his Bill, but I shall not do so. Rather, I shall appeal to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the new clause as a means of ensuring that an Act of Parliament that has all-party support is not destroyed or undermined by a censorship Bill which, far from extending and developing freedom of information and getting the public involved, will control, constrain and censor local government.

Mr. Robin Squire: It is expected of me to say something about the new clause. The hon. Member


for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and I dealt with aspects of this matter at various stages of what became the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. I have tabled an amendment, which we are to consider later, which addresses itself to issues similar to those discussed by the hon. Member for Bootle, so I shall not detain the House for long now.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it quite clear why the Government propose to resist the new clause, if they do. If the Government do not accept the new clause, many people of all parties will be worried by the possibility even of the release of agenda items and minutes which are thought to be freely and openly available under the access to information Act being restricted by the Bill. In fairness, I know from correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the Government do not intend that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will underline that view, just as I am sure he accepts that our anxiety is legitimate. The access to information Act is important. It was a small step along a route to which we shall, I hope, join other Acts. I do not wish to see its effects watered down.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I suppose one of the reasons why the Government have come out with the code of conduct in the Bill is that for the past five years they have been getting away with blue murder. They have overreached themselves. The Prime Minister has run the Cabinet and dominated it in an autocratic fashion, and got her own way, so that if anybody murmured anything to her that she did not like she kicked him out and replaced him with somebody suitably wet—wet in the sense that he will bend the knee to her. As a result of that background and environment, the right hon. Lady felt pretty safe in saying that she would go one step further and tell local councillors to keep their mouths shut. She does not want people spending money to speak against the Government, and she feels that if she can control the Cabinet, she will ensure that she can control County hall.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In the case of the Greater London council, the Prime Minister shut its mouth by chopping off its head.

Mr. Skinner: That is all part of the scenario that led up to the Bill. My hon. Friend is right. Getting rid of the GLC and the metropolitan councils was all part of the right hon. Lady's strategy of chopping away a little bit more from the freedom of the country and the individual. This is yet more trampling on civil liberties. With each year that has gone by the Prime Minister, with her toadying Ministers, has been able to encroach a little further on individual freedoms in local government.
Is there any wonder that in the autumn and winter of 1985 the same Prime Minister has been able to tell another toady that she has put into the Department of the Environment, "This time you will stop them from opening their mouths. I am fed up with having anti-Tory propaganda from the local authorities." It has been suggested that all this is being done to curb local government expenditure, but that is nonsense. The Government use that principle to kid the public. It is a scandal that, following a cut in rate support grant from 62 to 46 per cent. this financial year, local authorities are being threatened and have been stopped from objecting to

such cuts. The domineering Prime Minister is carrying out what almost seem like Fascist tendencies to stop her opponents from telling the truth.
The real scandal is that when the Bill received a Second Reading only a few weeks ago we saw the appalling sight of the Liberals—the so-called defenders of freedom and liberty —walk into the Tory Government Lobby and vote to curb the natural desires of local authorities, and Liberal councillors, to say their party piece. What a black day that was for the Liberals and the SDP. I sit on this Bench and hear all the stories, and I know that the truth was that the Liberals' so-called friends in the SDP told them what to do. [Interruption.] This tame Liberal—the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who is trying to heckle—

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermordsey): I am not tame.

Mr. Skinner: —did what he was told to do and, like Manuel, followed Basil into the Lobby. They should be ashamed of themselves. There is another one here, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), trying to heckle me. They are supposed to be quiet, yet they accuse me of heckling.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Get on with it.

Mr. Skinner: They went to Hebden bridge last week and told these fairy stories.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the subject of the new clause.

Mr. Skinner: It is about freedom, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will tell you another thing. If the Prime Minister was in power for long enough, she would shut your mouth as well. That is how far she would be prepared to go. Some people are laughing in the Strangers' Gallery—to which we should not refer. Instead, I tell hon. Members that the Prime Minister knows no bounds when it comes to getting her own way. If ever there was an example of where this Tory Government have gone a little too far, it is in saying to local authorities, "We shall stop your from speaking out." All the surveys have shown that on this issue the Government have gone too far.
Some people from a local authority came to see me today because they were concerned about the Bill. I told them that if the so-called code of conduct went through, when it had the force of law they would not be able to speak about this matter. Some other people from Derbyshire county council spoke to me at 2.30 pm in Committee Room 9. They had come down to complain about poverty in Derbyshire. I told them that when the Bill becomes law, the Prime Minister will have gagged councils. I gave them some advice in the name of freedom and civil liberty. I told them to arrange another meeting on poverty and the disabled, and that if they came down we would meet them. I told them that it was their duty to ignore the code of conduct and dare to challenge the Tory Government, because they should not be allowed to get away with it. I hope that every local authority member will not take a blind bit of notice of what happens today. They have a duty to speak up for all those old people and the disabled for whom they are trying to provide services.
What has happened today is not much different from what happened on the days last week when we discussed Westland plc. The principle is autocracy and a


domineering Prime Minister gagging people and trying to shut up opponents. The Tory Government have been doing it for six years, and I hope that sufficient Tory Members will walk into the Lobby against the Bill.
I know that the Liberals have changed their minds. They have been told in no uncertain terms what to do today by the Liberal councillors. I hope that everybody who values freedom, including the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who introduced the access to information Bill, will stop this vile process of trying to prevent local authorities from speaking out on behalf of the people who gave them a mandate to speak.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Obviously, my alliance colleagues are doing quite well to merit such a large section of the speech made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We can always tell how well we are doing, because the better we do, the longer the hon. Gentleman goes on about us.
I shall speak specifically about the new clause, which is more than the hon. Member for Bolsover did. I do so as the third of the triumvirate that helped to get the Local Government (Access to Information) Act on the statute book. The other two are the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), who tried three years ago, and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who succeeded a year ago after my attempt two years before. The massive effort and support put into that Act by local authorities to make town halls accountable—something that the Government always seek to make councils do—would be thwarted if in any way the Act's provisions, even in the smallest particular, were counteracted by the Bill.
The Government should unequivocally say that they entirely accept the new clause. They must accept that they may have been ambiguous at best—if it were worse, they would not admit it—in making it appear that there would be a conflict and that the Bill would restrict publicity of documents and the like and might be contrary to that Act.
Access to information will be extended to local authorities on 1 April. The Government intend the Bill to be on the statute book before that because there are other clauses of the Bill that relate to that date. It is vital that the Minister who is to reply to the debate should clearly say that the Government will accept a new clause and that there will be overriding support in favour of public access to information on what takes place in town halls, irrespective of any other clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is ironic that the first Bill introduced to the House by the Prime Minister when she was a private Member was a Bill to increase access by the press to local authority meetings. It seems that power genuinely corrupts because the Prime Minister is now anxious to restrict access to information being put out by local authorities to the people they represent. One can assume that it is the holding of office that has caused the enormous change in her attitude.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was correct in his analysis of the Government's feeling and philosophy about the Bill. I wish he had been on the Committee because he could have enlivened some of the sittings. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that

the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government, who is sitting languidly at the Dispatch Box, had difficulty with his own party on a number of issues. All the extreme elements of the Conservative Back Benches in Committee were trying to make this draconian Bill worse than it already is.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Banks: One of those Back Benchers is rising now. The Minister's problems came from the hostile and ugly Right wing that now occupies many ranks in the Conservative party. I shall give way to the hostile and ugly Member.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is posing as the champion of freedom of access to information. Will he tell us how often he spoke against the practices of the Greater London council where the Labour group is driving more and more decision-making behind closed doors and into private sub-committees dominated by the Labour party?

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman must know that all decisions in local government are subject to the scrutiny of a full council meeting. Therefore, there is complete openness in local government.

Mr. Richard Holt: rose—

Mr. Banks: There is far more openness in local government than in central Government. We have just seen an example of the way in which Ministers can keep things quiet and deny information to the House when the House actually needs that information. That is the sort of Government we are dealing with. The Government want to be secretive all the time. They want to fiddle the books and cook the figures. We are dealing with a Government of petty crooks.

Mr. Holt: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has limited experience in local government. If he had as much experience as I have, he would know that the GLC and many other local authorities delegate full powers to subcommittees and even lower bodies to spend vast sums of money. None of the decisions is subsequently ratified and such decisions are often taken on the word of a chairman.

Mr. Banks: I agree that the hon. Gentleman is older than I am. I do not know how many years he has been in local government, but it is conceivably longer than I have been.

Mr. Holt: Twenty-one years.

Mr. Banks: Congratulations. I have spent 16 years in local government, and I am the chairman of the GLC. I can modestly claim to know a little about what goes on in local government. I suspect I know more than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) aware that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) does not have much time for local government because he runs a local bookmakers?

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want something to appear in Hansard that should not be there. I though I heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) say that he is dealing with a Government of petty crooks. I realise that he has some


experience in that area—he must have with the GLC—but I do not think that it is right to use such terms in the House to describe my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, even though we may criticise them from time to time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I deprecate extravagant language, but a general accusation of that sort is just in order.

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), with his constant interruptions and lecturing to the Chair, is the last person who would seek to mislead the House or tell lies. However, before he makes statements about what I do, he should check, because I do not run any betting shops.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a perfect illustration of the fact that we should return to the subject of the new clause.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has got the wrong odds.
The Bill defines publicity as
any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public".
An enormous amount of material is included under that definition. It seems unbelievable that council and committee reports, consultation documents, press releases, press conference statements, media interviews, and so on, should be caught up in the codes of practice. I cannot believe that that is really what the Minister wants to happen. If he does, it is an absolute disgrace that the Government, having put local government in an economic straitjacket, now want to stuff a gag in its mouth.
We in local government have great pride in the openness of the system. No other system is subject to so much public and press scrutiny. I must add that no other system is subject to so much vile abuse from Tory Back Benchers and Ministers. The GLC has been subject to a great deal of vile abuse from the media hacks of Fleet street and the neanderthals on the Back Benches of the Conservative party. There is an example of that in the Daily Express today. The quotation refers to the full GLC meeting, which I chaired:
Red Ken Livingstone was slammed last night for planning to give away more than £100 million to 'loony Left' groups before the Greater London Council is scrapped.
That is an outrageous lie. I do not know the pervert who wrote that. All I can say is that he was either stupid or drunk. Conceivably, he was both. That is the sort of thing that local councils, particularly the GLC, have to put up with. We are open in everything that we do and have no reason to feel guilty or concerned about accusations made by the Conservative party that we are secretive. All matters decided in the GLC eventually go to a full council
meeting. That is where they can be challenged and voted on.
I cannot believe that the Minister is not prepared to accept this new clause. If he does not accept it, he will have struck a blow against accountability and democracy in local government.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I want to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) when my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was unavoidably out of the Chamber. The hon. Member for Bootle drew the attention

of the House to the question whether I and my colleagues would vote in a particular way on Report and Third Reading. It is perfectly proper to give a Bill a Second Reading on the basis that one would want it to go to Committee to be examined clause by clause and line by line to see if one can support it on Third Reading. If the hon. Member for Bootle looks at the Committee record, I do not think he will find a single Division in which I and my hon. Friends were not in the same Lobby as the Labour Members. We were entirely consistent in our voting in Committee.
In Committee, it was interesting to see whether the Government would be found in the same Lobby as us when they were opposing their own rebels, which happened on several occasions. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) here. He is the only one of those rebels who fought throughout the Committee who is here. Those Conservative Members made legitimate points about the Bill. One might have expected to see the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) here to continue that fight today.

Mr. Straw: In one respect, the Bill is being marginally improved. Having voted for the Bill on Second Reading on the basis that they would judge whether the Bill was improved, now that the Bill has been improved, will the Liberals vote for or against the Bill on Third Reading?

Mr. Meadowcroft: That is a very good question. There are many other good questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the answer?] Wait a minute. The House is so impatient to hear that it often does not get the answer.
The answer is that many other improvements to the Bill were proposed in Committee, which we tried to get through. However, we failed. There are also various amendments on the Amendments Paper for discussion on Report. All of us take these matters seriously, and at the end of the Report stage we shall all consider whether the Bill should be given a Third Reading.
I should like to deal with the substance of the new clause. The issue is important, and reflects the dilemma posed by the Bill. On the one hand, we have the permanent purple patch oration of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who went into a diatribe about the attacks on local government perpetrated by the Government. The fact is that this restrictive Bill is now before the House and has been fought through Committee precisely because of the abuses in local government. Every accusation that the hon. Member for Bolsover brings against the Government for their actions towards local government one could level at Labour-controlled local authorities because of their actions in restricting free speech and manipulating and abusing the systems of local government, against the wishes of the minorities on those councils.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Gentleman said that., after he and his colleagues had heard the debates on Report, they would make up their mind whether to support the Bill on Third Reading. Is he speaking for Liberal Members here in the Chamber or for the alliance? Will they tell Social Democratic party Members what they intend to do, or are they making up their own minds?

Mr. Meadowcroft: The demands made on Second Reading by representatives of the alliance were set out


carefully, and can be read in Hansard. We shall consult our colleagues in both parties, and there is no secret about that.
Let me return to the substance of the new clause, which is crucial to the debate. We have a particular difficulty, because we are outside the dogfight. Liberal Members and those in the Liberal party throughout the country wish to enhance the powers of local government, but we do not want to see the abuses that we have seen in local government in recent years. Those abuses are getting worse, more devious and more manipulative. Therefore, one wants to try to curb such abuses. When we look at the Bill and the amendments on Report, we must ask whether those abuses will carry on. We must ask: can the Bill fulfil its intention? Will the abuses that the Bill wants to attack be prevented? Will the things that the Government do not intend to stop be stopped by the Bill? That is the dilemma. The new clause illustrates that dilemma.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) got his Local Government (Access to Information) Bill through Parliament. Labour members in local authorities who want to abuse their position and the control that they have will be able to get round the Bill simply by putting into council documents, which may be subject to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, things that they want to put out as propaganda. Therefore, the Government are in a dilemma. They can see that there is a loophole if they make the Bill subservient to the access to information Act. The Government have never referred to that point. They have not said whether the things that they want to stop will be stopped by the Bill, or whether the things that they do not want to stop will be allowed.
4.45 pm
I hope that the Minister will try to deal with the problem of whether it is possible to get around the intentions of the Bill by things becoming available through the access to information Act which otherwise would not have been available.

Mr. Gavin Strang: It is important that a comment is made after the speech by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). He must recognise that when such a Bill is before the House, one must vote against it. Even after all the Committee sittings, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has fully appreciated that the Bill suppresses fundamental liberties, as has been said by many hon. Members. I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, but I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The Bill suppresses the right of elected councils to communicate legitimately with their electorate.
There may be the odd abuse, but no abuses have been brought to my attention yet. There has never been any question of the Labour party being in favour of councils using money to support Labour party candidates or promote Labour party issues. The evidence of the Labour party to the Widdicombe report is clear—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Except that the report is in favour of the proposal.

Mr. Strang: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman read the evidence. The Widdicombe report was opposed by the Labour party, and the Bill goes further than that

report. I am referring to the Labour party's original official evidence. I do not want to go over the matter again, because we went over it time and again in Committee.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I take seriously what the hon. Gentleman says about the Bill striking at people's fundamental freedoms. If those freedoms and the conventions that sustain them have been abused time and again by those who are supposed to protect them in local government, it poses a great problem to the legislative Chamber, which must consider whether it should try to tighten up on those freedoms to avoid such abuses. The question is whether the Bill does that. Does the new clause help? The hon. Gentleman does not help his case by suggesting that all is sweetness and light in Labour local authorities, because it is not.

Mr. Strang: I should like to think that all Labour authorities were perfect, but I would not claim it. I do not want to be drawn again on the matter. Legislation is already on the statute book which has a bearing on these matters. It limits the right of local councils to spend money on what they want.
I am glad to see the Under-Secretary for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), in the Chamber because there was no Minister from the Scottish Office in Committee. For that reason, there was a tendency for many people in Scotland, certainly the media, to overlook the significance of the Bill for Scottish people and elected Scottish councils. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the councils all made representations.
Major rights that have been taken for granted by the councils are now to be removed. I shall give two examples. The Under-Secretary's regional council, which is controlled by the Conservative party, supported by its allies in the alliance, put through every door in Edinburgh a leaflet explaining the implications of the Government's Transport Act and saying what damage it would do to our local bus services. Such actions will be suppressed under the Bill.
We have a major campaign in the north of Scotland about Dounreay. My view is clear, but whatever view one takes on the development of civil nuclear power in Dounreay, it is of enormous importance to the people. Surely, in a pluralist democracy the councils should be allowed legitimately to communicate with their electors and with the wider Scottish community to express their attitude to that development.
The island councils must be allowed to campaign on issues that are important to them. One tends to think of Shetland and Orkney as being part of Scotland, but they have a different history and culture. Shetland has its own legislation governing the development of oil and the Shetland island council must be able to put to its people its views on important matters.
The new clause takes us into a new area. It is all about the availability of information to the people. I have been speaking about Scotland because I was conscious of the fact that I was the only Scottish Opposition Member on the Committee but, of course, the Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. We have always taken it for granted that councils should be able to communicate freely and to campaign on issues such as poverty and unemployment.
We know what the Government are doing. Government documents are becoming more and more biased. It makes


me sad when I see some of the documents that are produced by civil servants in the name of the Government. I quoted a civil defence document in Committee and will not quote it again; it was about civil defence and the farmer—a grotesque political statement which had nothing to do with an objective view of the issue.
Such use of the Government machine for propaganda purposes is likely to increase under our authoritarian Prime Minister in the run-up to the election. At the same time, the Greater London council produced an excellent document outlining the implications of a nuclear attack on London. It was an objective statement produced by objective scientists. It was not a peace movement document. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is laughing about it. I think he will find that even the Home Office and the experts from whom the Government seek advice recognise that that was simply a print of a speech made by a Home Office civil servant, which the council made more widely available to the people of London.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is correct. The document to which he paid credit was based entirely on Government publications and statements, and nothing else.

Mr. Strang: That is why the Bill is such an outrage. Later, we may go into the details which were referred to in Committee.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Strang: I said I would give way once, and I am not giving way again.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Member gave way twice.

Mr. Strang: I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) because I was referring specifically to London and he is a GLC member. That was the exception.
There can be no fudging about the Bill. It is a brutal, authoritarian measure which will suppress the fundamental rights of elected councils to communicate legitimately with their electorate, with the Government and with the wider community.

Mr. Ted Garrett: I was not on the Committee, but we have to consider the fact that many councils in areas of high unemployment have a difficult task in putting to the people problems arising from the activities of central Government, whether it be a Tory Government or a Labour Government. Like many other hon. Members, I served on a local authority for many years. A long time ago we issued leaflets and communicated with the press; councils employed press officers to help in that task. That policy was not challenged until recently.
If a council is under Socialist control—I am not talking about the far left or the right but just about a council controlled by the Labour party—invariably it faces a hostile local press similar to the national press, which leans towards the establishment, of which the Conservative party is part. Therefore, it is important that a reasonable case should be presented to the electorate; I emphasise that it should be a reasonable case.
In the north-east, a reasonable case has been presented on shipbuilding, on transport, on the rights to claim social security benefit and on the way to claim rent rebate or rates allowance. All that will cease if the Bill has its full impact.

Any reasonable person—I hope the Under-Secretary of State will be reasonable—who reads the Bill will recognise that we will be subjected to a form of tyranny because the public will not be told the facts about the problems they face, as seen by their elected representatives. That is why I feel so strongly about the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I think I understand why the new clause has been tabled. I am less certain that I understand some of the more colourful contributions in its support. I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been raised.
I think the new clause has been put down because there is general concern that material that is published by local authorities to do with the workings of their committees and of their members might unwittingly be caught by the Bill. It is my clear understanding that what the Bill is attempting to do, and I hope will do, is to prevent local authorities from publishing any material in whole or in part which appears to be designed to affect, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for a political party.
We are talking here about something slightly different in the context of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 that was so aptly and eloquently introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) last year. Many hon. Members will know that not only was it welcomed by the House as a whole but that I played a small but interested part in supporting it. So there is no possibility that I could stand at the Dispatch Box and not understand the fears that are encapsulated in the new clause.
I do not believe that the Bill says what Opposition Members believe it says. Perhaps a misunderstanding has arisen because of the wording of an outline code of practice which is available to hon. Members in the Library but which was also circulated before Christmas to all hon. Members who were serving on the Committee. It included a paragraph about unpaid publicity, including council and committee reports, consultation documents, etcetera. It went on to include press releases, press conference statements and media interviews. This outline of the code of practice was intended to be no more than an outline. and it will be subjected to a considerable amount of consultation, much of which is already being undertaken.
Within the existing document there are some phrases which could quite rightly be caught by clause 2 of the Local Government Bill which I trust will shortly become an Act. They may well fall into the category of being reasonably regarded as likely to affect public support: for a political party—the sort of thing described by my hon. Friends where some council leaders and chairmen of committees have gone out following a meeting and have issued overtly political press releases. That sort of thing is undesirable and is not part and parcel of the proper workings of local government.

Mr. Tony Banks: I find it strange that the Minister should be surprised that people in local government, elected councillors, act politically. Politics are not confined to this House. Is the Minister's mind open to the removal from that outline or draft code of the reference to council committee reports, consultation documents, press releases and press conference statements?

Mrs. Rumbold: My mind is always open to reasonable suggestions from any hon. Member.

Mr. A. J. Beith: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: I should like to continue.
When we are talking about this section of the code of practice, I am certain that we are talking about matters which came within the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. These provide for public access to council meetings and to meetings of committees and sub-committees. There is a definite move towards openness in local government. These provisions allow public access to the agendas, reports and minutes of all meetings—publications which fall well outside the remit of this Bill.
The 1985 Act will open to public inspection background papers on reports of council meetings, sub-committee and committee meetings, and all those papers which, in the opinion of the officers of any local authority, it would be right to disclose as matters of interest to the general public who require such papers to ascertain whether certain matters of interest to them are being dealt with openly and freely by their local council. I hope that that goes a long way to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch.
I should like to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). There must be a clear understanding about the provisions of the Bill that relate to the public availability of agendas and the general proceedings of a local authority. All matters that relate to the functions of local government and which are proper processes for local government are put on paper and will be available to the general public.
As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, many local authority members are quite clearly associated with political parties. It is a different matter if a member or leader of a local authority deliberately uses money from his authority to make political points and if he issues press releases that are of an overt political nature. That would rightly be caught by the provisions of the Bill, and that is the purpose for which the Bill has been brought forward.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the ordinary man and woman in the street, on reading an account of what she has said, will ask why it is that a Minister of this Government can be transported free of charge from one oak panelled room to the next to make overtly political speeches on behalf of the Conservative party? Ministers of the Crown do that every day in this country and abroad, but an elected representative of a local authority, who just happens to be a member of the Labour party, cannot speak up for his constituents and make a political speech. There are double standards—one standard for a Minister of the Crown and one for the local authority representative. It is a scandal.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member would be better advised to stick—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Lady does not like it, does she?

Mrs. Rumbold: I love it. The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to stick to his accounts of Fawlty Towers and John Cleese and Basil Fawlty than to try to pick me up on something about which it is clear he knows absolutely nothing.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister not realise that a press release or council document which might be circulated to a large number of people is the sort of document which a parish council would circulate in pursuance of its contention that the closure of a railway station, or a DHSS office, or something of that kind, would be detrimental to its area? It is difficult to avoid the fear that such a publication might be construed as tending to reduce support for a political party, the one that happens to be in power, whether it is the Conservative party, the Labour party or the alliance, or whatever. There is real anxiety at that level of local government, where party politics plays a very small part. A purely local campaign conducted by a parish council on behalf of its residents might be caught by these definitions.

Mrs. Rumbold: The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers will come up for discussion when we debate functions. He will find some responses to which he will be interested to listen.
There has been a suggestion that there is such a thing as unpaid publicity; that is, where a local authority can find ways to say that publicity that was coming out from it had not incurred the direct transfer of cash, but that funds had been provided seemingly indirectly. That would also be caught by the Bill if it were information coming from the local authority itself, because the local authority would either directly or indirectly be funding that publicity.
I reiterate that it is only overtly political publicity that will be caught by the provisions of the Bill. All truly straightforward publicity on matters that are dealt with legitimately by local authorities, and all the papers that relate to local authorities, to which access by the public is available and which are not anything other than straightforwardly informative, will be outside the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Garrett: The Minister is quite properly reciting what shall and what shall not be. If she believes in the fundamental liberties, does she not see that there is now a move for the first time towards some form of censorship, something that we have not had since the 1939–45 war? Some faceless person will decide how that form of censorship will operate within the guidelines that the Minister is suggesting. Is it not a dangerous step to suppress a fundamental liberty? It is that which is causing me concern, and I hope that it is causing the Government concern.

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, although I am not sure whether I agree with his fears. There are no words in the Bill which will prevent proper and honest information being given by a local authority to its electorate, provided that it is not of an overtly political nature. There is no reason why such an authority should be overtly political, and there is no reason why any information should not be couched in perfectly reasonable terms and accepted as such by the general public.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is more capable than most of expressing extreme policies in the most reasonable language. As a Chelsea supporter, I must say that there is much about her that commends itself to me. She probably learnt her language down at the shed end. In view of what she has just said, would the GLC's welfare benefit project, which produced 150,000 responses and about £11.5


million of unclaimed benefit out of the £100 million that the Government estimate is lost in London alone each year, be caught by the Bill?

Mrs. Rumbold: That would depend on the way in which the GLC's benefit fund was set up, and on the way in which those provisions were related to the public. I am not sure that it would, but it is possible. It would depend on how those provisions were couched.
It would be far fetched for the House to assume that the new clause is necessary. The Bill is worded clearly enough, and I therefore ask the House to resist the new clause.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I should like to seek the leave of the House to respond briefly. We are not happy with the Minister's explanation. She said that the new clause is unnecessary but she did not say that it would do any harm. We think that it is necessary, so perhaps it should be included just to make sure that the assurances that we have been given are enacted. There are many examples of assurances given by Ministers, but things often turn out differently, which is what we fear in this legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked whether the GLC's welfare rights campaign would be caught by the legislation. The Bill says that if something is not the function of a local authority, that authority cannot campaign on it. It does not have to be political, overtly or otherwise. If it is not an authority's function, even though it is to the benefit of the people whom the authority serves as an elected body, it cannot campaign on the issue.
There is nothing overtly political in monitoring the police, but only a police authority can spend money on monitoring the police. In the same way, money cannot be spent on welfare rights if that is the function of another body. Therefore, matters that are not overtly political are caught by the legislation.
What is overtly political in the minds of one group of people is not overtly political in the minds of another. I do not think that campaigning on peace and nuclear-free zones is overtly political; it is reasonable common sense. But there are hon. Members who think that it is overtly political. However, to recruit unemployed people in my constituency to the Territorial Army, as the Sefton council does, is overtly political. But that might not be caught by this legislation because it is all a matter of subjectivity.
Once we start legislating for censorship and trying to define what is and what is not political, what someone can and cannot say or can and cannot publish, one is on the slippery slope towards making local democracy and local government in Britain operate in the way that it had to operate in Franco's Fascist Spain and the way that it is forced to operate today in Jaruzelski's Poland.

Mr. Holt: Is what is important not whether the hon. Gentleman and his party campaign on something but who pays for that campaigning and whether the money comes out of public funds?

Mr. Roberts: The ratepayers of Sefton pay for the recruitment campaign for the Territorial Army. The ratepayers of Sefton and other local authority areas pay for the Conservative council's campaigns in favour of the sale of council houses. They are overtly political campaigns. I always remember the Prime Minister's maiden speech in 1960, when she said:

The public has the right, in the first instance, to know what its elected representatives are doing." —[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1350.]
That means publicity and expenditure.
The Liberals have not made it clear whether they are in favour of the legislation. The truth is that they are against it but the Social Democratic party is in favour of it. That is because they are hooked on the same prejudices as the Tory party. What are now radical Left-wing Labour councils were previously controlled by Right-wing Social Democrats. We have thrown them all out in places such as Islington. In Liverpool the Liberals are in alliance with a group of people who were on the right of the Labour party whom they are supposed to have fought for years. It is those Social Democrats, who ran councils such as Islington, Manchester, Liverpool and elsewhere—Rightwing Labour people—with whom the Liberals are now in alliance. They do not like the new policies of the new radical Labour councils. I remember the Liberals criticising junketing in Manchester—one lot boozes while the other pays—and now that the council has got rid of all the junketing, it is being criticised for getting rid of the traditions of Manchester.

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government (Mr. William Waldegrave): I was under the impression that the Opposition Front Bench did not much care for the policies of the Liverpool council either.

Mr. Roberts: I have not mentioned the policies of the Liverpool council. I mentioned—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying a long way from the new clause.

Mr. Roberts: The Opposition regret that the Government have not accepted the new clause. We regret the Government's policy of local government cuts and their enforcement. We regret their privatisation policies. If democratically elected councils do not want privatisation, it is enforced. Then the Government chose to abolish those councils that happen to be strong and Labour—the metropolitan county councils and the GLC. Now we have a policy of censorship in local government—the policy of telling democratically elected local councils, whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal, how they can and cannot spend the revenue that they raise locally, what they can and cannot say and can and cannot campaign on. In other words, honest debate and opposition have no place in the elective dictatorship of the Prime Minister's Government.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

PROHIBITION OF POLITICAL PUBLICITY

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'publish' and insert
'incur expenditure on the publication of.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out 'local authority publicity' and insert
'the incurring of expenditure on publicity by local authorities'.
No. 22, in clause 6, page 4, line 30, after 'to', insert
'the incurring of expenditure on.'

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said that the crucial issue in the Bill was, who pays? The question whether ratepayers' money should be used to pay for political propaganda is a foil for the good intentions of the Bill.
The Bill does not just seek to control so-called political propaganda on the rates. It also seeks to control, as can be seen clearly from the outline draft code, what councillors may say and think in committees when no cost is imposed upon ratepayers.
The amendments are intended to give the Government an opportunity to bring the Bill into line with what they say is its purpose. An examination of previous debates on the Bill will show that the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary put forward what was, in a sense, a pioneering ten-minute rule Bill before the measure. She said on 16 May 1984:
The only restraint that I wish to impose on the section is on using money raised through taxes and rates for party political purposes."—[Official Report, 16 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 370.]
That was the mischief that the hon. Lady was aiming at, and she has acknowledged it.
The Prime Minister used similar words during the debate on the Loyal Address on 6 November 1985:
We are therefore introducing this Session a Bill along the lines proposed by the independent Widdicombe Committee to ban the use of ratepayers' money to finance political propaganda."—[Official Report, 6 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 23-4.]
When the Secretary of State moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 18 November 1985, he said:
The Widdicombe inquiry recognised that it was implicit in the present law that local authorities should not spend public money on party political matters, but it recommended that that implicit prohibition should be given statutory effect. The Government agree with that view." —[Official Report, 18 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 42.]
If the Bill only gave effect to what Ministers have said it should, there would not be much argument between the parties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, in its evidence to the Widdicombe inquiry the Labour party, no more and no less than any other political party, believed that party political propaganda should not be paid for out of ratepayers' money.
The Bill goes wider than that. The crucial trigger to enable the Government to use the Bill to censor and gag opponents is contained within clause 2, the first line of which states:
A local authority shall not publish any material".
That reveals the true intentions of the Government. The Opposition amendment seeks to delete "publish" and insert words which mean that local authorities should not incur any expenditure in publishing material. According to the Government, that is the mischief that they are seeking to deal with.
It is time that the Government faced up to the massive oposition which the Bill, as presently drafted, has run into from members of Conservative groups. The Association of District Councils, which is Conservative-dominated, opposes the Bill in exactly the same terms as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils.

Mr. James Hill: The chief officers.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member has mentioned chief officers, but I am talking about councillors such as Councillor John Morgan, who is a Conservative councillor

and who opposes the Bill. Councillor Tony Hart, the Conservative leader of Kent county council, wrote to the Secretary of State on 30 December to say that he was very worried about the contents of the Bill. Mr. Hart kindly sent us a copy of the letter in which he states:
It is imperative that the Bill as drawn up should be amended in order to avoid new controls which would be imprecise and possibly raise major problems of definition.
Mr. Hart went on to say that the council appreciates that the task of finding words that will stop abuse but permit ordinary good practice to continue would not be easy.
In Mr. Hart's judgment, all good practice would be banned by the Bill. Those careful words from Conservative councillors show the deepest misgivings, which are made worse by the publication of the draft code of practice. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, which is not political, believes that the Bill as drafted is unacceptable and will, in its words,
prove a recipe for extensive litigation.
There has already been considerable discussion about double standards. As long as the Bill remains in its present form, with a restriction on publishing rather than on incurring expenditure, the Government will not only be charged with, but will be guilty of, double standards.
I wrote to the Prime Minister on 7 January to ask her how she had the gall to allow a draft code of practice to be published which seeks to gag councillors not when they incur expenditure but gratuitously when they speak. I asked how the Prime Minister could do that, when the Cabinet Office's own code of guidance for Ministers and Government press officers, while it deals with so-called unpaid written publicity—we accept that it is bound to incur some expenditure when it is written—in no sense deals with what Ministers and Government press officers say at press conferences. It is now notorious that if the code was in operation and the Government injunctions on local authorities applied to central Government, Mr. Bernard Ingham, the Prime Minster's chief press officer, and many other press officers would have been contravening the code daily.

Mr. Tony Banks: Paid for by the taxpayer.

Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend rightly says, paid for by the taxpayer.
The code prohibits comments that are not objective. Comments should not be over-simplified or personalised, should at no stage be seen as politically controversial and should not directly attack the policies or opinions of other political parties or groups.
It would seem that these days Government press officers are not particularly bothered about attacking other political parties, but they are interested in attacking other political groups—their so-called ministerial colleagues. Not a day does by without one ministerial press officer—at the behest of a Minister, as the press officers do not act on their own account—using the lobby system and their freedom under central Government conventions to attack another Minister. That happens not merely on the subject of Westland, but on other matters.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for drawing my attention to a matter which exposes the Government's double standards. Bradford city council has written to all the Labour and Conservative Members who represent that great city to express its deep anxiety about the Bill's implications on the council's day-to-day work of


representing the electorate. That representation has the support of councillors from all parts of the political spectrum. Councillors are worried that their day-to-day work will be affected. They mention representations about poor railway services. If they raise that matter to the level of controversy, the councillors would be inhibited by the code.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West has also drawn my attention to the intentions of the local authority in the Under-Secretary's constituency. The Government are seeking to gag political opponents. Right-wing Conservative councils, such as Merton council in the Under-Secretary's constituency, are seeking to gag their staff. I have, courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, a copy of an extraordinary code of conduct about communications with the media by which not only are council chief officers to be gagged but cleaners, caretakers and teachers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am anxous to hear the debate. The hon. Gentleman should address the House and not turn his back on the Chair.

Mr. Straw: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I caught it from the Secretary of State for the Environment the other night.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend does not have to worry about his back.

Mr. Straw: That is right.
The code of conduct says:
No person employed by the Authority in any capacity or for any period should make to the media any communication in which there is an indication that he or she is an employee of the Authority without explicit written permission from the individual's Chief Officer.
That is just for starters. The Under-Secretary sheds crocodile tears in her anxiety about free speech, so let us see what she has done to oppose her authority which is gagging its employees.
The Government, no more and no less, seek to snuff out opposition. The Bill is not about controlling expenditure. Were it so, the Government would accept the amendments.
I come now to the interesting matter of the Liberals, and their squirming and worming as they decide during the debate—as if its outcome were not plain—how they will vote.
It is important to remind the House how the Liberal Members sought to vote in favour of the Bill when it came before the House on 18 November 1985. The reasons that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) gave should go down in the history books. He was explaining to the House why Liberal Members would vote in favour of the Bill. They were going to vote in favour of the Bill—I quote directly—because clauses 2(1)(b) and 3(1) and 4 are appalling and extreme. They would vote in favour of the Bill because clause 4 is horrendous and because it is arbitrary. They would vote in favour of the Bill because clause 2(3)—

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is not quoting. That is a paraphrase.

Mr. Straw: It is not a paraphrase. The deputy leader of the Liberal party says that it is a paraphrase. It is not.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The House spends an increasing amount of time referring to documents and arguing

whether the words used are a quotation or a paraphrase. If we are assiduous, we will all have the relevant columns of Hansard. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mislead the House by suggesting that those were expressed as the reasons why we would vote in favour of the Brill on Second Reading. On the contrary, those were our objections to the Bill which we wanted dealt with during the Bill's passage if we were to sustain our support for it. Elsewhere, as I shall quote if the hon. Gentleman does not, we gave our reasons for supporting the Bill on Second Reading. It is elsewhere. It is not in that part of Hansard.

Mr. Straw: Was I paraphrasing or making it up? Would I make up what is patent on the face of the Official Report?
I have searched for any positive reasons why the Liberals are in favour of the Bill. If one takes the view that a Bill is appalling, extreme, horrendous, arbitrary and dangerous, then the brain's normal processes might lead one to vote against the Bill, but I am not a Liberal and I do not know how they work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said, rather generously, that the matter arose because the Liberals were on one side and the members of the SDP were on the other. That is not true. Part of the parliamentary Liberal party voted in favour of the Bill, but those Members are opposed by all the Liberal councillors in the Association of County Councils who have been in the van in opposing the Bill. Councillor Tony Greaves, of Hebden Bridge, who runs the bunker at Hebden Bridge—[Interruption.] We know more about Councillor Tony Greaves than the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mrs. Hughes) does. Councillor Greaves agrees with us more often than he agrees with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. Councillor Greaves is on Lancashire county council and we keep track of his voting record.
In a Lancashire county council debate, Councillor Tony Greaves, the leading Liberal councillor—it does not lie in the mouths of any Liberal Members who are worried about their reselection to deny this—backed the Labour group's resolution not just against what the Government are doing but against the more moderate recommendations contained in the majority Widdicombe report.
There was one revealing passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, if I can turn it up.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has not prepared his speech.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that I have not prepared my speech. I have, but I have inadvertently pulled out the flag that I had marking the pearls that came from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: It might give the hon. Gentleman a moment to find his place if I were to remind him about the unanimity that there appeared to be and that he admitted in Committee on 10 December when I asked him whether the Labour party was then taking a view consistent with the evidence that it gave to the Widdicombe inquiry. He said:
Pity about the question, but the answer is yes. M) hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) seems worried, but there is no need. In its evidence, which was approved by its national executive committee, the Labour party stated that it had always agreed that ratepayers' money should


not be used for explicit party political purposes, for example, in support of named candidates or in support of a Labour group or of a Conservative group. Information money should properly be used to support and explain the policy of the authority as a whole". —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1985; c. 157.]
That view and the alliance view were consistent. The Labour party, however, did not vote consistently when the matter came to the House, whereas the alliance did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The intervention had little, if anything, to do with the amendment.

Mr. Straw: To return to the amendment, it relates to the fact that the Bill goes much wider than the Widdicombe report.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Yes.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman said, "Yes." We opposed the Bill on Second Reading because it goes much wider than even the majority Widdicombe report. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to find the other things that he said in Committee. He said: Without stretching your patience too far, Miss Fookes, I shall say for the record"—
the hon. Gentleman did not stretch only the Chairman's patience, but that is by the way—
I shall say for the record that the parliamentary parties here"—
that is, the Liberals and the SDP—
believe that party political advertising on the rates should be prohibited, as Widdicombe suggested. That view is not shared by our council group, which is an autonomous body within the party." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1985; c. 159.]
Liberal councillors apparently believe that it is OK to spend ratepayers' money on party political propaganda, because those are the words that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey used. We know that the Liberals are—I was going to say fair-minded, but that would be too generous—

Mr. Meadowcroft: Electorally progressive.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has now confused me. As he has proved that the Liberal party is in favour of propaganda on the rates, which I remember him saying he was against, my conclusion is that he should vote with us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Straw: No, the answer is that the Minister must vote with us in the Lobby.

Mr. Hill: Let us all go into the same Lobby.

Mr. Straw: That may happen. This group of amendments is intended to bring the Bill into line with the recommendations of the Widdicombe report and with what Ministers said was its main purpose.

Mr. Tony Banks: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As he said, if the Government seriously want to do what they say they want to do, they will accept these amendments.
The amendments give me the opportunity of drawing to the attention of the House once again the total hypocrisy of the Government's position on publicity and information. If it is put out by the Conservative party in government, by definition it is information. If it is put out by Labour-controlled local authorities, it is, according to

the Government, propaganda. That is the attitude of the Government to all matters—one of hypocrisy and double standards.
Let us take as an example the enormous amount of taxpayers' money spent by the Government on putting out their propaganda through various Government Departments, which the Government describe as information. Some of the press and publicity departments are enormous and their budgets are going up all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) tells me that the Government now spend £23 million on publicity. We would call it propaganda, for that is what it is. It is pushing the policies which the Government espouse. Labour Members find those policies objectionable, divisive and clearly aimed at trying to sustain the Conservative party in power.
If a local authority tries to tell the truth about central Government policies, that is branded as propaganda. All I can say is that when the Government stop telling lies about local government, local government will stop telling the truth about the impact of the policies of central Government.
The questions that I put down recently to various Ministers about the money spent in their Departments on press publicity show that the amount spent by the Government doubled between 1984–85 and 1985–86. It is difficult to get the complete figure, which is running at over £10 million in 1985–86—this is Government propaganda paid for by the taxpayer—because, despite my asking the Minister of Defence on 6 December to state the amount of money spent by his Department on propaganda, I am still awaiting a reply, although it has been promised to me in frequent telephone conversations with the Minister's office. I can only assume that once again it is trying to cook the books, as we know the Secretary of State for Defence has been so ready to do.
Let us look at some of the percentage increases in Government Departments over the period 1984–85 to 1985–86. They show that the Department of Employment's publicity budget increased by no less than 300 per cent. in that period, while the Welsh Office increased its spending by over 250 per cent. in twelve months.
All this, we maintain, is propaganda put out by the Government and paid for by the taxpayer. If the Government aim to restrict the local authorities' ability to start telling the truth, they should do something to limit their own capacity to tell lies at the expense of the taxpayer.

Mr. Meadowcroft: This amendment is not particularly significant, despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to make it so. It seeks to temper the Bill, and to that extent it is valuable, but it seems to us to pose a quite arbitrary and unsustainable distinction between the work of a local authority and that which can be divided out as separate expenditure. If an attempt were made to separate out the particular expenditure, that in itself would introduce a dangerous element into the whole debate, because it would mean that a local authority which was seeking to undermine the conventions and to abuse its rights as a local authority could have a separate fund and say, "Ah well, because it did not come out of that it is part of the generality of local government and so does not fall foul of the Act."


There is no part of local government on which expenditure is not incurred. If staff are employed on a particular part of local government work, expenditure is clearly incurred. No work is carried out without staff time. The amendment, therefore, seems to impose a highly artificial and arbitrary distinction between paying for and being part of the generality of local authority work. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mrs. Rumbold: Amendment No. 1 seeks to substitute the words
incur expenditure on the publication of
for the word "publish" in the first line of clause 2(1). As the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) has just said, the substitution would to some extent be rather spurious for the intention of the Bill and, indeed, for its actual operation. It would muddy the waters.
I know that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has written to the Prime Minister, and I also know that a letter is on its way to him, which I am sure he will read with immense interest.

Mr. Straw: Has the hon. Lady a copy of it?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am afraid not. I am sure that it will be published immediately.
To support his arguments for this particular amendment, the hon. Member for Blackburn lined up nearly everybody of whom he could think—all the local authority leaders of all political persuasions. He told the House that nearly everybody on the Government Benches and on the Opposition Benches would be persuaded to support not the Bill, but the amendment. He said that these people had written in large numbers. It is perfectly true, because we have all had letters from local authority associations and others expressing concern.
I suspect that much of the concern has been expressed partly because of the contents of the outline of a code of practice which said that publicity would include
paid publicity, including paid advertising in the press, on radio and television, leaflets, campaigns, exhibitions, etc.
Much of the alarm has been aroused by local authority members who have perhaps been advised by their officers that this would be exceedingly difficult for local authorities to carry out and might entail a great deal of expenditure, and many other things that are somewhat alarmist.
I remember the Local Government (Access to Information) Bill which, we now assert firmly, has wide support throughout the country. I have to tell the House that the wide support consisted of an absolute barrage of letters from local authorities, and especially from their officers, telling me and, I am sure, all my colleagues that the Bill would be exceedingly detrimental and would incur such massive expenditure that local authorities would need a greatly increased block grant from the Government in order to cope with it. Yet, now that it is on the statute book, it appears widely accepted as a splendid piece of legislation, which it is.
I must refute the hon. Gentleman's argument that, simply because there appears at the moment to be opposition, that is a good reason for the Government to accept his amendment. His amendment adds nothing to the sense of the Bill. I feel that, were it to be accepted, it would be nothing—

Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady says that she objects not to what councillors say, but to councils spending ratepayers' money on party political propaganda. Why, then, is the Bill not addressing itself to that and that alone?

Mrs. Rumbold: That is exactly what the Bill addresses itself to. Publishing will incur expenditure of ratepayers' money. Publishing in any form is likely to incur some expenditure, however indirectly, of ratepayers' money. For that reason, I believe that the Bill is perfectly adequate. I especially support the Bill. As the hon. Member for Blackburn pointed out, I introduced a modest ten-minute Bill on the matter, which suggests that I anticipated that the Government would ultimately, and sensibly, introduce a Bill of this type. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 16, leave out
'can reasonably be regarded as likely to'
and insert 'it is probable will'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'can reasonably be regarded as'
and insert
'it is probable that it is'.

Mr. Straw: In one sense this is a technical matter. but it is also important. Clause 2(1) is the trigger for the rest of the Bill. The tests established in the clause are the key
tests of the Bill. Clause 2(1) states:
A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—
(a) a political party".
There are two legs to the test. We have argued about the principle of the Bill, but within the context of the principle I understand why the Government have introduced the test whether material
appears to be designed to affect … public support".
That test is objective, but from a relatively objective test we move to one that is worrying and potentially wide-ranging in its scope. The test whether material
can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—
(a) a political party
could open a Pandora's box. Anything that a local authority does could be classed as being
reasonably … likely to affect, public support for … a political party".
Yesterday I went to Southampton to launch the Labour party's higher education charter. I was in the foyer of the city hall of that great city when I noticed that the council had shown great initiative. The council is seeking to do something about potholes, holes in the road, and broken lamp posts. The council has issued postcards, which are plain business reply postcards on one side with "oops" on the other side. The postcard states:
A Post Card from you means action from us. Please fill in using BLOCK CAPITALS.
It asks for details of the repairs that are needed, such as for potholes in footpaths, missing road nameplates and broken street lights. That is sensible action for a local authority to take. I am sure that the Minister acknowledges that there is no party political intent. Authorities must have a system of recording complaints, and it is better to receive them in that form rather than on scraps of paper resulting


in dissatisfied ratepayers. That action has been taken by a Labour-controlled council, but it was not designed for political purposes. If the campaign is successful, it could be taken as being
reasonably … likely to affect, public support for … a political party".
If a council does something good, that is likely to affect public support for the party. If the council does something bad, that could equally be
reasonably regarded as likely to affect, public support for … a political party".
I am grateful to the Minister for answering my correspondence in detail about how the courts would seek to interprete the test. In his letter, the Minister states:
In essence it is a test of remoteness just as in negligence liability lies in respect of all damage which is reasonably foreseeable.
That took me back 20 years to the endless hours that I spent in my tort lectures. However, I am not reassured. Many of us who are lawyers are not reassured by the Minister's assertion that the test is one of remoteness. I do not believe that remoteness would be an issue. Of course, local authorities could do something that could be so remote from political support that the action would be out of court. But, in the case of the Southampton postcard, the question of remoteness does not arise. The council is directly responsible for the postcard. If the council does well out of the campaign, it will gain political support, so remoteness is not an issue.
The man on the Clapham omnibus could reasonably believe that, although the council did not intend to affect political support, its action could reasonably be regarded as likely to affect political support. In this context, reasonableness is a wider-ranging test and is not of the Wednesbury type, which, in administrative law, is a test of unreasonableness where public authorities are allowed a wide discretion to be reasonable and the courts intervene only when they have been unreasonable.
We seek to substitute the test with one of probability, which is a concept well known to the courts. Although it does not depart from what the Government wish to achieve, it provides a more objective and fairer test than that in the Bill.
We understand the problems of drafting legislation, but it is the duty of the House to improve legislation when we violently object to its purpose. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment in that light.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, in Committee we had a substantial debate on terminology. The debate had a political layer and a legal layer. The Committee accepted that the wording in the Bill implies a reasonableness test. That allows for the maximum possible interpretation by the courts of what they could interfere with or intervene in.
The reasonableness test has been established in many cases following the Wednesbury case, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn referred. The Wednesbury case asserted that reasonableness could be tested by whether someone could reasonably act in a certain way. It is not a balancing exercise, but an evaluation of an action, giving the benefit of the doubt to the person making the decision to act.
In Committee we considered that the test in the Bill would extend a principle of administrative law to a new

area, which could involve an enormous amount of litigation. Local authorities would be uncertain about the practical reality of what would appear to be a catch-all phrase. Because of the opinion expressed in Committee, the Minister said that he would ask his officials to reconsider the phrase.
Clearly, no Government amendment suggests a better definition. The Minister accepted that definition was difficult. Several amendments were tabled, of which two have been selected, in an attempt to give effect specifically to the Widdicombe committee's recommendations. Paragraph 229 of its report states:
An express prohibition of expenditure calculated to advance the interests of a political party could well have a moderating effect on the scale and style of campaigns.
That wording is not legalistic.
6 pm
If the Government are unwilling to accept the amendment, one of the problems will be that, instead of there being on the face of the literature a sign of its likely effect, there will be a much wider definition. The Widdicombe committee intends that we put into statute what possibly already exists in the common law. I hope the House will accept that that will not happen if the clause passes into legislation unamended.
The danger is that this is the sort of argument that can detain people in the High Court for hours, if not days, because it revolves around substantive and important traditional matters of legal definition. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter, because of its practical implications. Even if they have not yet found a precise substitute which is closer to Widdicombe's recommendations, they have the benefit of advice which they did not have in Committee.
All hon. Members will have received a joint statement by the three local authority associations—the county, district and metropolitan councils—which specifically comments on the present state of play. It states:
Widdicombe appreciated the difficulties of translating this statutory prohibition into legislation. The question is what is the best test of whether publicity is 'party political'? Clause 2 seeks to apply tests of intent … and effect. We believe this is fundamentally wrong, unworkable in practice and would lead to prohibitions well beyond the Widdicombe recommendation.
The paragraph entitled "A Lawyer's Paradise" states:
Widdicombe … stated that 'We wish to avoid new controls that will be imprecise, or raise major definitional problems, and are aware that it is easier to identify a problem than to encapsulate that problem in a legislative formula.
The councils' response to that Widdicombe quotation was:
Clause 2 is so imprecise, with so many words and expressions needing subjective evaluation, that it looks like a charter for extensive litigation.
The amendments seek to replace the test of reasonableness, as the county councils' objective assessment has evaluated it, with a test of probability. Will the Government admit that they have not yet done what they said they intended to do when they began legislating, which is to implement the Widdicombe recommendations?
Although there has been much mirth periodically at the expense of this position, I must repeat that from the outset we in the alliance have stood full square behind the Widdicombe majority report. We said that we thought it right to legislate for Widdicombe's recommended prohibition. We also said that we needed a definition that would go that far and no further. When the legal and political opinion of groups representing all political


parties, all groupings of political parties, and all the major
groupings and societies of officers in local government, with all their years of experience, is that the clause, if it is unamended, will result in uncertainty, excessively wide interpretation of its original intention, and endless litigation, it must still be unacceptable.
I hope the Minister will say that, although he could not get his officials to come up with a satisfactory amendment, he recognises, as he did previously, that it is necessary to re-amend the clause, and that the selected amendments, at least one of which was tabled by my hon. Friends and myself, are at least a better stab at the objectives of Widdicombe than is the Government's definition. It is a matter of both political and legal judgment, and of the Government's honesty with the electorate in doing what they said they would do. I hope that the Government will concede that right and that justice, and that the best solution to the difficult legal problems is on the side of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will accept them and say that they are better than what we started with.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is interesting to hear a lawyer warning the Government about the dangers wihin the Bill rather than licking his lips at the thought of the fat fees that he and his colleagues in the legal profession will undoubtedly demand from local authorities and others if the Bill is enacted without amendment.
The Widdicombe inquiry, which was aware of the advantages of local authority publicity, recommended that
there should be an express statutory prohibition of local authority publicity of a party political nature.
All hon. Members will agree with that statement because it is unexceptionable. It does not propose a new restriction on local government, because at present the publication of party political material would contradict central principles of administrative law. It would be either improper or irrelevant, so there is no need for this further strengthening.
We accept that the Government intend to improve the Bill by proposing an amendment which deletes the reference to
a body, cause or campaign identified with, or likely to be … identified with, a political party.
However, there is no real change to the heart of clause 2(1) or the Bill. The crucial phrase refers to banning
material which … can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—
(a) a political party".
That inflicts a test of such severity that it goes well beyond a statutory declaration of existing law.
The amendments that we have tabled seek to redress the balance in clause 2(1) and (2)(b), so that material would be banned only if it were probable that it would affect political support. Even if the amendments are accepted, the Bill will represent a lawyers' paradise.
The existing tests will almost certainly prevent local authorities from issuing publicity about proposed Government legislation, provided that the legislation has been the subject of political disagreement between any two parties. It is extremely difficult to think of recent legislation which has not been extremely controversial.
The type of publicity that local authorities have circulated, which draws attention to the impact of Government legislation on their local communities, was explicitly defended in the Widdicombe report as a proper and fitting use of public money. The Government's motive

for introducing the clause in its present form could well be to avoid the effects of having an informed public, which is what we have said throughout.
The Government are out to gag local authorities to prevent them from telling the truth about the impact of Government policy. The Government say that we live in a free society where information is available, but I do not accept that. Our society is relatively free compared with many others, but if our democracy is based on the freedom of soft pornographers, such as Murdoch, to print the trash, filth and daily lies in The Sun and, increasingly, in The Times, and the sort of stuff that we read in the Daily Star and Daily Express, it is extremely shallowly based. We do not live in a society where access to information is unhindered and free. This is one of the most closed societies in Europe. We live in a society where information is filtered through either the Government or their agents in Fleet street—the puppet Tory press of Fleet street—so local authorities are attempting to redress the information imbalance.
The Bill will prohibit an authority from publicising a rates cut, or a decrease or an increase—if that were ever to happen—in its HIP allocation. The effects of these policies on Labour local authority services would be open to challenge, as would a Conservative council that issued information to promote council house sales or selective education.
As long as I am a Member, I shall refer to the Greater London council as it exists and when it has passed on, temporarily. The GLC is involved in a range of publicity campaigns drawing attention to certain benefits aimed at improving the environment or the lot of Londoners. There have been campaigns aimed also at drawing the attention of Londoners to the effects of Government policies. The "Fares Fair" policy, which was so popular with Londoners, would not be allowed to operate under the Bill because it was controversial. A Conservative group need only object to the policies and the GLC, once again, would be dragged into the courts.
The welfare benefits project would be banned because the Greater London council is not a welfare social services authority. The GLC would be prevented from mounting a campaign drawing to the attention of tens of thousands of Londoners the social security benefits that they are entitled to claim, but are not claiming. The Government have told us that about £100 million a year goes unclaimed in benefits in London. The GLC's welfare benefits project has each year enabled about £11·5 million of that unclaimed money to be put into the hands of some of the poorest people in our community who so desperately need it.
Streetwise Kids, civil defence, advertising of concerts and the cultural activities at the Royal Festival hall and programmes drawing attention to the evils of pavement parking and the need for strategic planning are all campaigns with an element of controversy, because they are opposed by the Government or by the opposition within the council. These campaigns would fall foul of the Bill, particularly this clause. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who, I understand, has given up his legal practice, has warned us it will be a bonanza for lawyers. In his profession, many people are waiting to ring up the pound signs on the tills. This will mean a real killing for lawyers at the expense of


taxpayers and ratepayers. If the Minister is serious about ensuring that the Bill does not provide a lawyers' paradise, he should accept the amendments.

Mr. Beith: I should like to address to the Minister the question that I addressed to him in the context of the words that the amendment seeks to alter. The clause refers to
material which … appears to be designed to affect, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—
(a) a political party".
How can the normal activities of any parish council not be so regarded? It is in the nature of the activities of parish councils to write letters, publicise grievances and circulate material, all of which is designed to affect the activities of other bodies, because they have so few powers and responsibilities of their own. Therefore, they criticise what other people do. The consequence of that is not so much the fear of other parts of the Bill and of other amendments, but the anxiety that they will become attached to a cause that is identified with a particular political party. Often, the cause will be supported by several political parties. They appear to be staunch critics of the Government of the day or perhaps of the political party that controls another local authority in whose area they are situated. It may be a Conservative county council—if there are any left in future years—or the party in power at Westminster that is criticised. One way or another, they will finish up criticising a political party which is in power merely because of the grievance they raise.
If the Alnwick town council raises, as it has done on several occasions in the past two years, the subject of the inadequate number of police on the beat in the town and the rise in crime, it will appear to some reasonable people to be casting doubt on the effectiveness of the Government's declared policy on law and order and crime reduction. I consider myself to be a reasonable man, and I do not think it is an unreasonable conclusion that that might affect the political support for the party that forms the Government.
6.15 pm
Another parish council may complain about the reduction in railway services from Chathill or Widdington, or some other station in my constituency. It may be regarded by a reasonable person as casting doubt on the commitment of the Government of the day to our railway system, which other people rightly question.
It seems to me almost impossible for parish councils to carry out their normal activity of speaking up for the needs of their areas without appearing to be acting in a way that may reasonably be regarded as likely to affect public support for the political party that forms the Government of the day, or controls the local authority that provides the services about which they are speaking. It is in that context that I am worried about the words in the Bill. I am sympathetic to the idea that they might be amended. I hope that, although the same issue comes up in other areas, the Minister will discuss its relevance in this context as well.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I am in some difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the context in which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) moved the amendment, but I can foresee problems over the situation that is already portrayed on television—an advertisement by Preston designed to attract additional investment into the Preston area. That is a very good thing,

of course, because investment is likely to attract more jobs and make various other improvements in the local economy.
When one looks at that advertisement, and at advertisements of the kind that other authorities might put out, it seems to me that they will have, and I certainly will have, some difficulty. This is probably purely a matter for lawyers to debate, and the rest of us might as well keep silent. The clause states:
A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support".
If the amendment were accepted, the clause would read:
A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect, or it is probable will affect, public support".
I accept that my hon. Friend, a highly intelligent barrister, must know the difference between those two sentences, but I am damned if I understand the difference between them. I am anxious to ensure that local authorities are not deprived of the opportunity to disseminate informative material to the people in their areas, because in my view that is a fundamental responsibility of local authorities.
We have argued about education, as I said in Committee. We have sought to inform people about education in our areas. The amendment will not help a local authority to decide, because it will not be able to publish any material that "it is probable will" rather than that it
can reasonably be regarded as likely to
affect public support.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Thorne: I understand that I am to receive the advice of a legal expert.

Mr. Hughes: I can only suggest what I think is the agreed answer. There is concern about the clause as it stands because only one or two people need to take that view and the material will be outlawed. With the probability test, the general view of as many people as one would wish to consider must be assessed. Therefore, the view of one or two people could be enough to force what we are talking about into the category of illegality. If the measure is changed, the general view of the population will have to be weighed up. I think that that will have a much safer outcome.

Mr. Thorne: Having heard that, all I can say is, God protect us from the lawyers. The clause does not suggest in any form that, on the one hand, we are selecting the views of a minority of people, and, on the other hand, that a majority might make their wishes clear on particular issues. I do not know how a lawyer can reach that conclusion. Are we talking purely about semantics?
Something in these words baffles a mere Back Bencher like me. The clause states:
A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support".
Can you help, Mr. Speaker? Where does the clause refer to the opinion of a few people rather than to that of a large number of people? You, too, are baffled, and I am not surprised. However, we have the legal experts with us, and they have found a remedy. I hope that the Government can provide a more sensible solution—I say this with due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—than I have heard so far.

Mr. Waldegrave: The debate began in its usual way with the alarmist tendency of the Labour party led, on this occasion, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who made a moderate and understated speech. He said that democracy in local government and civilisation, and so on, were at an end—a speech familiar to all those who participate in these debates. I face the slightly deflating task of saying that I fear that nothing so exciting is afoot. I want to tread rather quietly, because I may get into trouble with some of my hon. Friends if I say too much.
The Government have to steer a middle course. They have to outlaw the worst abuses, although they know that certain actions, of which many Conservative Members disapprove, will still be legal under the Bill's definitions. I shall briefly go a little wider than the amendment, which is the heart of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave an example of something that he claimed might be excluded. By no sensible construction of the Bill would that be excluded. I want to give a slightly more major example of something which I believe will be totally legal under the Bill. Bristol has the misfortune to have a Labour council. At most weekends I work to rectify that by trying to remove that council. Not many hon. Members would describe Bristol city council as a very Right-wing Labour council. It includes some pretty radical members. The council has produced an annual report which some of my colleagues in Bristol, who are working to get rid of the council, would say was glossy and unnecessarily expensive. They would like its presentation to be different and for different policies to be presented. I can find nothing in that report that the Bill would prohibit. It is a perfectly good account by a council trying to take various measures for its area and people. Of course, it does refer to some of the wrong things—in my party's view—that the council wants to do.
The report was produced by Mr. Robertson. He did not describe himself as the "Labour leader of Socialist Bristol" or similar nonsense—he described himself properly as the leader of Bristol city council. Mr. Robertson described the various measures that he would have liked to undertake had the Government not prevented him from doing so. For example, he would have liked to spend more capital, but Government restrictions on capital expenditure, which I have defended in the House, stopped him from doing so.
I find nothing in the document that would be outlawed by the Bill or would in any way be unacceptable under its provisions. It is well within the traditions of the type of local government supported by all hon. Members who support local government. That is not to say that I do not want to get rid of the city council as soon as possible and replace it with a proper Conservative council. This would save ratepayers' money. It would result in a different balance of policies. I must make it clear that we are not in the business of trying to prevent the type of activity described by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne)—for example, where a sensible council is trying to attract inward investment. Of course we are not trying to prevent that, and the Bill does not do so.
The annual report could have done what the Militant Tendency council did in Liverpool — use banner headlines saying, "Socialist council in Liverpool", and make party political attacks on the Liberal party, and party political attacks on the Conservative party. That would rightly be put in jeopardy by the Bill.

Mr. Beith: In so far as the document refers to the disappointment of the leader of Bristol city council at the various things that he has not been able to do because of Government constraints, might it not lead—however objective and calm its tone—a reasonable Bristol citizen away from supporting the Conservative party, which is the Government to whom reference is made in that very objective way?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall come to the legal argument why that is wholly fanciful. I think that someone who did not know the politics of the area would not know the council's policy after reading the document all the way through. I have no doubt that that would cause great offence to some of the wild boys in the Labour party. They would think, "What a waste. This fellow Robertson has put out an objective document which has not infuriated the opposition parties and shown what a splendid Socialist he is."
I shall not go too far in praising Mr. Robertson, because I am trying to get him out of office as soon as I can. Indeed, I pay tribute to Mr. Robertson and his senior officers, who are exceedingly good and responsible persons. Those officers have advised Mr. Robertson how to put his case fairly without coming within 100 miles of the jeopardy of the Bill or of breaking the traditional conventions.

Mr. Max Madden: The Under-Secretary of State has received a letter from Bradford city council, where the Conservatives are the largest group, but are not in control. That council has passed a resolution against the principles of the Bill. The letter was prepared after extensive consultation. It cites a number of campaigns conducted by the council in the past year or so which it claims would be within the terms of the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman give a specific assurance that the campaigns to which the letter refers would not come within the Bill's provisions? Will he give a clear and categorical assurance to Conservative councillors and others in Bradford who are extremely worried about the Bill's provisions?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have received letters from a number of Conservative councils, including the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, to which I pay rates, as I do in Bristol. I have received letters from Bradford and other authorities. It would be wrong for me to try to become even more of an amateur lawyer than the ex-lawyer from the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and to give free counsel's opinion on particular campaigns. I have brought with me one example of the sort of material that will be perfectly all right on any sensible interpretation of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) seeks on every clause to raise the issue of parishes. In due course we shall come to the appropriate clause and be able to deal with the issue. I hope that I shall be encouraging to some extent when we do so.
I shall explain why I do not think that the amendments are right, in as steady and clear a way as I can. I shall start with the Liberal amendment, No. 25, which reads:
or calculated to advance the interests of".
That is unclear and seriously defective in two respects. In the first instance—I thought that I had persuaded even


some Opposition Members to accept this argument in Committee—it is no good merely inserting the words "advance the interests of a political party". Some of the most damaging party political material that is put out by a council might be knocking copy that is directed to another party.
The modern advertising industry is becoming better and better at producing knocking copy. Many Members will remember the excellent advertisement for the deux chevaux Citroen, which claimed that it was faster than a Porsche. We were told that a deux chevaux travelling at 60 mph could overtake a Porsche being driven at 55 mph. Given that the advertising industry is becoming better and better at producing knocking copy, "advance" would be an inappropriate word. I suggest that "calculated" is an intention word. It is a word which draws in the assessment or intention of the council in a complicated and obscure way involving words that are not familiar to the law. I do not think that that amendment is worth considering.
I turn to the amendments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), Nos. 2 and 6. First, let us remind ourselves of what we are doing. It makes me nervous in one sense, but encouraged in another, to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has entered the Chamber at a time when I am talking about the law. I shall be nervous to do so in front of him, but—

Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Minister has told the House that he is replying to the Liberal amendment. We are not discussing a Liberal amendment. Instead, we are discussing amendments Nos. 2 and 6, neither of which has been submitted by the Liberal party.

Mr. Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg the pardon of the House. I thought that before responding to the two amendments of the hon. Member for Blackburn I would take up some other aspects of the issues that they raise. This is an important debate and I think that it would be unfair to the Liberal party if I were not to mention the amendment that it has put before us.

Mr. Thorne: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is saying that he does not want to be unfair to the Liberal party. In fact, he is being unfair to you, Mr. Speaker, as you have selected amendments Nos. 2 and 6 in this instance and no others.

Mr. Speaker: That is correct. The Minister, like everyone else, must address himself to the amendments. It is reasonable, however, for him to answer the questions that have been asked by Liberal Members during the course of the debate.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall address myself to the amendments of the hon. Member for Blackburn in everything that I have to say from now on.
Clause 2(1) prohibits a local authority from publishing any material which
in whole or in part appears to be designed to affect, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—(a) a political party".
This test is applied to the nature of the material that is published, and that factor must be central to our approach. The test should not be applied to the motive of the local

authority. The test is not whether the authority intended to affect public support; nor is it the effect of the material which is the consideration of whether it does affect public support. Nothing has been said this afternoon that has caused me to think that we were wrong in our judgment. It would be impossible to introduce a test that involved the measuring of motive and effect. A local authority might have a number of different motives and intentions. It is often impossible to prove effect, although great books have been written on why it is that certain shifts in voting patterns have occurred in particular elections.
The tests that are set out in clause 2(1)(a) and (b) are objective tests that are justiciable. The courts will have to form a judgment on the nature of the material, in the light of all the circumstances of the case. The test in paragraph (a) is directed to the nature of the material to determine whether it was intended to have an effect on public support. That test has been at the centre of our approach. In other words, it is whether it can be inferred from the nature of the material that it was produced for a party political purpose. The words that are at the centre of the amendment—

Mr. Beith: The Minister has imported into his paraphrase of the words in the clause the very concept of intention which he said previously was inappropriate and could not be worked into the clause. He has used the words "intended to" in his description of the contents of the clause. It is clear that intention is not featured in the clause.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. The court would have to judge and estimate whether the material could reasonably be regarded as likely to affect public support. It would not be necessary to consider the intention of the council at the moment that the material was produced. It is the material itself that will have to be judged. I think that that test provides the only hope of going forward.
The next crucial passage is:
can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support".
The policy is that local authorities should be responsible for the ordinary consequences of their actions, especially when they produce publicity. It is a difficult and important area. The test remains an objective one that is addressed to the nature of the material, and that is considered in the light of its likely consequences. I apologise to the hon. Member for Blackburn for going through the argument slowly, but it is important to have it set out clearly on the record.
The hon. Member for Blackburn suggests that we substitute
it is probable that it is
for
can reasonably be regarded as",
and that is still an objective test. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he introduced the amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment or a stupid amendment. He is trying genuinely to improve the Bill, and I am trying to argue why the amendment should not succeed. Amendment No. 6 provides an objective test that is based on the nature of the material, but turns on probable consequences rather than on likely consequences.
It is at this point that we part company. We part on the intention behind what we are trying to do, and not on the law. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman's test is a narrower one than that which has been put forward by the


Government. We are debating whether it is probable that less material will be caught on the basis of its probable consequences than is likely to be caught on the basis of its likely consequences. There is a dispute between us about the width of the coverage and the capacity to win a case in court. We have considered whether the proposed narrowing would be in order, and we do not believe that it would.
The hon. Member for Blackburn is right about reasonableness — a concept which I introduced in Committee in the wrong place. The administrative law concept has no direct relevance in determining whether material can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect public support. The purpose behind the "can reasonably be regarded" qualification is to prevent a contravention, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, when the possibility of its affecting public support is too fanciful or too remote. The hon. Member for Preston and others have been trying to alarm us on that ground. They have chosen rightly to test what we are doing. In effect, they have asked, "What if one or two people produce a story that something is bound to have an effect on support for a political party?"
That would not be sufficient in court. That level of remoteness will not do.
The question whether material can "reasonably be regarded" is one which local authorities will have no difficulty in answering. I do not make that assertion lightly, because such judgments are made every day. Every day local authorities use the power in section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, which is headed
Subsidiary powers of local authorities".
That power gives statutory force to the common law doctrine of ultra vires. The courts have held that a corporation does things for which there is express or implied authority and whatever is reasonably incidental to them. That is using exactly the same sense of "reasonable" as that which is used in the Bill. It is a concept of reasonableness with which the law is very familiar and I do not believe that it will have any difficulty in applying it. During this debate and subsequently it may be sensible to make absolutely clear the sort of legal judgments on which the Bill has been based to still some of the anxieties that have been expressed.
I hope that I have given reassurance on the legal meaning of the provisions in the clause, although I must acknowledge that, like the hon. Member for Preston, I am not a lawyer. I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friends that we shall not narrow the test in the way that the hon. Member for Blackburn suggests. That would involve too much narrowing, and on that ground there is a dispute between us on policy. If the amendments are pressed to a Division, I shall have to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: As this is the Report stage, hon. Members can make only one speech. The hon. Member therefore cannot speak again.

Mr. Hughes: An hon. Member can speak again if he has the leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member have the leave of the House?

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 255.

Division No. 43]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Freud, Clement


Alton, David
Garrett, W. E.


Anderson, Donald
Godman, Dr Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gould, Bryan


Ashdown, Paddy
Gourlay, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hamilton, James (M'we1l N)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barnett, Guy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barron, Kevin
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beith, A. J.
Haynes, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bermingham, Gerald
Home Robertson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
John, Brynmor


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bruce, Malcolm
Kennedy, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Caborn, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell, Ian
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Litherland, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Livsey, Richard


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cartwright, John
Loyden, Edward


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Hugh


Clarke, Thomas
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clay, Robert
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clelland, David Gordon
Maclennan, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McNamara, Kevin


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McTaggart, Robert


Cohen, Harry
McWilliam, John


Coleman, Donald
Madden, Max


Conlan, Bernard
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Martin, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Maxton, John


Craigen, J. M.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Crowther, Stan
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Millen, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dewar, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
Nellist, David


Dubs, Alfred
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
O'Brien, William


Eadie, Alex
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Park, George


Fatchett, Derek
Parry, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Patchett, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pendry, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Penhaligon, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter


Forrester, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Randall, Stuart


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Redmond, Martin.






Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Straw, Jack


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Robertson, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Rogers, Allan
Tinn, James


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Torney, Tom


Rowlands, Ted
Wainwright, R.


Ryman, John
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert


Sheerman, Barry
Weetch, Ken


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Welsh, Michael


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
White, James


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Woodall, Alec


Skinner, Dennis
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Soley, Clive



Steel, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Mark Fisher.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cormack, Patrick


Aitken, Jonathan
Cranborne, Viscount


Alexander, Richard
Crouch, David


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ancram, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Tom
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Den


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fallon, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Favell, Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fletcher, Alexander


Benyon, William
Forman, Nigel


Best, Keith
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Franks, Cecil


Body, Sir Richard
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Galley, Roy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brinton, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bruinvels, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gregory, Conal


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grist, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Ground, Patrick


Butcher, John
Grylls, Michael


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, John


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harvey, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hayes, J.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Henderson, Barry


Conway, Derek
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon
Hickmet, Richard


Cope, John
Hicks, Robert





Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Needham, Richard


Hill, James
Newton, Tony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Norris, Steven


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Sir Peter
Osborn, Sir John


Howard, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Parris, Matthew


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral, W)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jessel, Toby
Pollock, Alexander


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Porter, Barry


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powley, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey


Key, Robert
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rathbone, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knowles, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lamont, Norman
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lester, Jim
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lyell, Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Spence, John


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Spencer, Derek


Macfarlane, Neil
Squire, Robin


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stokes, John


Madel, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Major, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Malins, Humfrey
Thurnham, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maples, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Marland, Paul
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marlow, Antony
Viggers, Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mather, Carol
Waldegrave, Hon William


Maude, Hon Francis
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Warren, Kenneth


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Watson, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Watts, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wood, Timothy


Monro, Sir Hector
Yeo, Tim


Montgomery, Sir Fergus



Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Moynihan, Hon C.
Mr. Tony Durant and


Mudd, David
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Neale, Gerrard

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I am sorry to raise this matter again, but I have just been notified—I do not know whether the information is


correct but I am told that it is—the Prime Minister is giving an extensive briefing to the Lobby regarding the matter on which we asked for a statement today. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, hold no responsibility for statements, but is it right that, when we have asked for a statement to be given to the House regarding the Westland affair which has been widely reported in the press, the Prime Minister should give a briefing to the Lobby at 7.15? The House has not been given any information. If the argument from No. 10 is that there will be a statement from the Prime Minister—which is likely to be the case—it will mean that we shall have a statement after the Lobby has been notified at 7.15 today. The briefing will be widely reported on radio and television and it will appear in tomorrow morning's newspapers. That is quite wrong. The Prime Minister is yet again showing her contempt for this House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not seek an opinion from me on these matters other than to say, and I repeat yet again, that I believe it is always right that this House should have first information on these matters.

Mr. Winnick: On a further point of order. Is it possible for you at least to let No. 10 know what you have just said? The briefing is due to take place in 20 minutes. I ask that the Prime Minister should come to the House before she briefs the Lobby.

Mr. Speaker: That is not my function. I cannot do that, but perhaps there are others who can.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
It may or may not be that the Prime Minister is briefing the press. The truth is that there is to be a briefing at No. 10 on these important issues. The point that my hon. Friend has raised, with which you have agreed, is that this House is being treated rather shabbily. Things are happening behind our backs. We are all anxious to have clarification and certainty on these matters. We are not being given that opportunity; others are.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There has been much criticism of an impending briefing. That criticism might be wholly misplaced because the briefing may be a background briefing. Opposition Members may laugh, but they are not entitled to make assumptions about the nature of the briefing. If the briefing is simply a background briefing, there can be nothing objectionable about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Briefings go on every day. I have no knowledge what the briefing is about.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In view of what the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has just said, I am more alarmed than I was before. Earlier today we pressed the Leader of the House for a statement, if possible, this evening. As you will know, the House is abuzz with rumours—that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been to see the Prime Minister, and that the Law Officers have issued an ultimatum concerning their own position unless certain actions are taken by the Prime Minister. In the circumstances, I do not think we can wait until tomorrow. We need a statement tonight.

Mr. Speaker: I know nothing of these matters.

Mr. Beith: Mr. Speaker, now that the Leader of the House is present—he came in while the exchanges were taking place—is it possible to give him an opportunity to clarify the situation? It cannot be satisfactory to you or to Members of the House that the intimation that a statement is to be made tomorrow by the Prime Minister should be gained from tapes or Ceefax, which is how I gained the information a few moments ago. In the circumstances, it would be better if the Leader of the House could tell us whether, in view of the information that is to be given to the press, the statement might be brought forward and made later tonight.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Earlier this afternoon I said that the question of a statement would be a matter for consideration through the usual channels. That is exactly how the matter stands, and I have nothing to add to what I said this afternoon.

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 18, leave out from 'party' to end of line 20.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 33, in page 2, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
'(b) a body whose purpose is to promote a political party'.
Those who were in Committee on the Bill will know that one of the principal debates was on the worries of some voluntary organisations. These worries were outlined to me when I met Mr. Peter Jay of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and some of his officials. They respected the Government's right to seek to undertake a policy of limiting the use of ratepayers' money for party political purposes. They argued that, inadvertently, we might have made great difficulties for some of the voluntary organisations which by tradition have had some support from some local authorities. This is a serious matter, and I acknowledged this in Committee.
We have given a commitment to try to meet this problem. It is difficult to differentiate between the legitimate anxieties of the legitimate voluntary organisations and the way some local authorities have sought to set up bogus or front organisations through which to carry cut party political activities at the expense of the ratepayer.
After discussions with the NCVO and others and having reconsidered the matter internally, we changed the original wording of clause 2(1)(b) so that it read:
a body whose purpose is to promote a political party".
That was to make it quite explicit that we were not trying to prevent organisations that might occasionally put forward views that coincided with the interests of a political party, but that we were concerned with those involved with party political campaigning. That original amendment was welcomed as a step in the right direction by some others who were worried, including, to some extent, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The amendment was welcomed, for example, by the National Association of Local Councils, which wrote on 8 January to an official in my Department. I shall of course make the letter available to anybody who is interested to see it. It said:
The undertaking given by Mr. Waldegrave in his speech to the Standing Committee to look again at Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill meets this Association's points on Clause 2 of the Bill. If the Bill were amended in some such way as the form of words indicated by Mr. Waldegrave I believe that the difficulties we foresaw for parish and community councils on Clause 2 of the Bill would disappear.


7 pm
I have thought about this matter further. It is never wise to stand too firmly on the drafting ideas that one produces quickly in Committee to try to meet an anxiety—these matters should be considered coolly. I have concluded that it would be better law, clearer and would in no way diminish the real purpose of the law if we removed clause 2(1)(b) altogether. We have here a Morton's fork. Either clause 2(1)(b) has substance, in which case I am advised that the courts will be likely to construe it as delimiting rather than widening the effect of clause 2(1)(a), or it has not. It is possible that clause 2(1) would be construed in such a way as to give some effect to clause 2(1)(b) but there is a danger that, to give effect to clause 2(1)(a), they would have to take a narrower view of clause 2(1)(a) if real meaning is attached to clause 2(1)(b). If, however, clause 2(1)(b) does not bite, it does not bite and the legislation would be cleaner without it.
After thinking about the matter very carefully, I have concluded that it helps some of the anxieties and makes cleaner and clearer law to delete clause 2(1)(b). I shall ignore the argument about the rubric of clause 2(1), for which I had hoped to persuade some that we had a strong case, but without clause 2(1)(b), it would read:
A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designated to affect, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—
(a) a political party".
I know that some of my hon. Friends are worried about front organisations. I draw their attention to clause 2(3), which states clearly that local authorities cannot do party political things or fund anyone else to do what they cannot do themselves. I have had legal advice which I greatly respect on this matter and I am assured that the intention that we are carrying through here is carried through by the combination of the new clause 2(1) with 2(3).
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their support of my newly formulated 2(1)(b), in one sense because I drafted it, but the danger is that we shall thereby narrow the Bill as there will be tremendous arguments in the courts about what the purpose of a body is. It is much clearer to leave the intention of the Bill on the face of the Bill by deleting clause 2(1)(b), the result of which is to remove any hint of narrowing such as I have mentioned. Clause 2(1)(a) will then have its full and natural scope. We are left with a clear statement of general principle, which I argue is better law.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to amendment No. 33, which another eight of my hon. Friends who were members of the Committee support. I was also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for explaining the change with regard to clause 2(1)(b), but I am still puzzled. In Committee, on 12 December, he said:
The definition in clause 2(1)(b) goes too wide although it was not intended to do so. I do not have an amendment to put to the Committee, I have only a form of words.
The form of words is that which appears as amendment No. 33. In justification to the original clause 2(1)(b)—
a body whose purpose is to promote a political party"—
my hon. Friend the Minister said:
That aims more directly and with a more effective shaft at the front organisation, which although it may be disguised as a general research committee for housing in the wider world or whatever, is an organisation for the promotion of the Liberal party, the Labour party or the Conservative party. It is an

important matter to get right and I hope that some of the worries that were voiced this evening have been dissolved."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 December 1985; c. 275-76.]
I agree that it is extremely important that we get this right. There is a danger that, far from the clause being weakened by the inclusion of an alternative clause 2(1)(b), which is what amendment No. 33 would be, it would be weakened by not having anything at all. If, for example, a housing organisation called the Stirling housing action group was set up in my constituency, funded by the local authority, established by the chairman and officers of the local Labour party and explicitly determined to promote the policies of the Labour party and to highlight what they believed to be the deficiencies of Government policy, I would find it much easier to argue in court that their literature was designed to affect, or could reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for a body whose purpose was to promote a political party than I would find it to argue that such a body could be reasonably regarded as likely to affect public support for a political party.
In the former case I have only to demonstrate the act of putting leaflets through letter boxes or campaigning, as it can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect support for that organisation, the aim of which is to promote a political party. I would find it much more difficult to argue that putting leaflets through letter boxes could reasonably be regarded as affecting support for the Conservative party because support for the Conservative party would be determined by a range of issues—perhaps divisions in the party or other issues that have nothing whatever to do with housing. Support for the organisation, however, can be readily determined and measured.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that there was a safety net in the form of clause 2(3) which says that a local authority cannot fund organisations that would produce such material, so we have no worries in that respect. I freely confess that I am no lawyer. Clause 2(3) says:
A local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to a person for the publication of material which the authority are prohibited by this section from publishing themselves.
By removing clause 2(1)(b), we remove the prohibition on local authorities from supporting material that is published by such bodies and organisations. Should it not be the other way round? Does not removal of paragraph (b) make it easier for the local authority to fund such an organisation, by allowing the local authority to argue that the Stirling housing action group is publishing material that is designed to better the conditions of housing in Stirling? It is not publishing material that
can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—
(a) a political party
because that is a much wider argument. Therefore, the council could argue that it was entitled to give financial or other assistance.
Is there not at least an argument—I appreciate that one could equally argue in the opposite direction—that without clause 2(1)(b) it will be easier for local authorities to fund such organisations and, with only clause 2(1)(a), it will be harder to stop these front organisations from campaigning in the way with which we are familiar?
I followed the Committee proceedings carefully and I understand the difficulties of framing such legislation. However, it seems rather odd that we should have started with the view that it was essential to have clause 2(1)(b) as it was drafted, although rightly the Committee


recognised that it might have caught one or two others, and that my hon. Friend the Minister should have suggested to the Committee an alternative to clause 2(1)(b), but we now find that it was not necessary to have any clause 2(1)(b). That is a remarkable change in position.
My hon. Friend the Minister told the House that voluntary bodies and other organisations gave some support to the alternative to clause 2(1)(b), which forms the text of my amendment No. 33. I can understand why, because it meets most of the points made by those voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) had expressed some support. I do not have the Official Report of the Committee, but no doubt the hon. Member for Blackburn can answer for himself. However, I seem to recall him arguing in Committee that the alternative suggestion on clause 2(1)(b) was better but not good enough and that it would still limit activity.
I use the hon. Member for Blackburn as my supporter because, if he thought that clause 2(1)(b) as it was redrafted and as it now forms the text of my amendment would have an effect, that makes my case more eloquently than I can. My hon. Friend argued that he had the support of the Opposition, but, on my recollection of the debate, that is not correct.
I appreciate the considerable worries about the way in which the modern Labour party, the new Left, will use every conceivable loophole and breach every conceivable convention in local government to further its political ends. Therefore, it is essential that we do not operate on the basis of good faith from the Labour party in local government, but recognise it as a reason for closing every avenue. For the life of me, Morton's fork and the legal arguments notwithstanding, I cannot see that amendment No. 33 would weaken the effect of clause 2(1)(a).

Mr. Simon Hughes: Of the two options, I welcome the Minister's rather than that of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The House will recollect that, as has been correctly said, the Minister's first stab at redrafting in the heat of the debate is what has now appeared in amendment No. 33. The view expressed by my colleague and me on behalf of the Liberal party, by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the voluntary sections and others was that clause 2(1)(b) was one of the most dangerous and most undesirable parts of the Bill.
7.15 pm
I applaud the Minister for confirming that it is better not to have clause 2(1)(b) than to have a variety of it. That improves the Bill. The Minister has received representations about this, although the amendment was tabled only yesterday, and organisations have had only 24 hours in which to respond. Therefore, he will be aware that the amendment does not meet all the concerns of the voluntary bodies but it is a move in the right direction. It takes out one of my four major concerns about the Bill and returns us to the principle that we are dealing with party political influence and not with the influence of organisations around the periphery of political and electoral processes.
I hope, as thousands outside do, that this will be the first of several such important steps to get the Bill right before it becomes law. I fear that it may not be.

Mr. Michael Brown: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). We have taken as our reference point in tabling

the amendment the proceedings in Committee and the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister there. I am referring to the seventh sitting of the Committee on Thursday. 12 December, part I, cols. 275 and 276. The Committee acknowledged that the Minister was in some difficulty with regard to the scope of the original wording of the clause, and there was discussion from both sides of the Committee. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister both in Committee and today that he felt that he was not bound by the words that he was drafting on the spot. Nevertheless, he went on to say that whatever happened, although he was not committed to the words of the amendment exactly, he would not move away from their "intent or common-sense meaning". He was referring to the words of amendment No. 33.
My hon. Friend went on to say that he felt that the amendment which he had drafted on his feet, or perhaps with some legal advice beforehand—and which we have picked up in amendment No. 33—
aims more directly and with a more effective shaft at the front organisation, which although it may be disguised as a general research committee for housing in the wider world or whatever, is an organisation for the promotion of the Liberal party, the Labour party or the Conservative party. It is an important matter to get right and I hope that some of the worries that were voiced this evening have been dissolved.
Conservative Members were anxious about the whole series of debates about the amendments before my hon. Friend the Minister made his speech. He dissolved our worries by his alternative suggestion, and he said that he hoped that the Opposition would withdraw their series of amendments
on the assurance of the form of words that I have given today".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 December 1985; c. 275-6.]
That form of words has now been withdrawn completely. Somewhere along the line my hon. Friend—I impute to him the best of motives—has considered, with his legal advisers, whether, whatever the form of improved words for clause 2(1)(b), the effect would be better if it were taken out altogether. He has concluded that we would still be able to trap the organisations about which we are all concerned if that happened.
I asked the Minister to go back to the original Bill as drafted. Some legal adviser wrote clause 2(1)(a), but decided that it would not capture some of the front organisations that the Government and the Minister are concerned about and that we needed the additional form of words for clause 2(1)(b).

Mr. Robert Wareing: How does the hon. Gentleman know that that is what was said?

Mr. Brown: I think that it is unlikely that words are thrown into a Bill for the sake of it. Someone considers the policy objective of the Government. Parliamentary draftsmen recognise that the Government want to deal with local authorities using public funds and ratepayers' money to promote political parties as well as with front organisations that also support political parties. One presumes that the legal advisers, having that policy objective before them, considered clause 2(1)(a) and decided that it was not strong enough, and that there must be an extra form of words. In Committee the Minister recognised the arguments from hon. Members and in letters from outside bodies, saying that clause 2(1)(b) was too wide and was trapping organisations that he did not


intend to trap. After taking legal advice, he returned to the drawing board and considered an alternative form of words, which I find acceptable.

Mr. Wareing: I know that the Government are not known for conceding to outside opinion, but could it not be that on this occasion, because of the agitation of voluntary organisations which considered that clause to be too sweeping, the Minister responded positively to that pressure? That could be the reason why he wants to withdraw the subsection.

Mr. Brown: Yes, of course. In Committee my hon. Friend talked about a campaign which his wife was associated with. He said:
It would be odd if the Bill's provisions meant that if her campaign was successful she would have to desist from any further activity. I doubt whether she could convince the Labour party or the Liberal party on such a sensible matter and if she convinced only the Government she might be in danger".
The definition of clause 2(1)(b) is too wide, although that was not intended. The Minister accepted the point of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and the representations that were made at the time of the Committee. He then said:
I do not have an amendment to put to the Committee. I have only a form of words. Although I have discussed it with my legal advisers, I want to make sure that it is correct. I am not committed to these words exactly.
That implies that some form of words would be brought before us, not a complete removal of the words. The Minister went on to say:
I will not move away from their intent or common-sense meaning." — [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 December 1985, c. 275.]
A complete withdrawal of clause 2(1)(b) without an alternative form of words means that the Minister is moving away from their common-sense meaning. For those reasons, I support the amendment.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I also support amendment No. 33, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting it, notwithstanding the fact that it is starred. In Committee, on 12 December 1985, the Minister clearly analysed the problems with which the Committee had to deal. He said:
I shall recap the tripartite structure of the argument against the abuses that we believe exist. First, we had to stop local authorities publishing material that might affect a political party—clause 2(1)(a). Secondly—clause 2(3)—we had to stop local authorities giving money to other bodies to do what the councils were not allowed to do themselves. Thirdly, we had to prevent an intermediate phenomenon: a publication in support of—or, presumably to damage—what might be called in common sense language a front organisation that may dress itself up as a campaigning organisation, but is not one. Such an organisation may trade on the high prestige of a great voluntary organisation, but is not one itself.
By supporting the removal of clause 2(1)(b) the Government are going back on dealing with two of the three problems. We shall not deal effectively with the problem of the front organisations, which everybody has agreed must be dealt with. I do not think anyone is in any doubt about how far Socialist-controlled local authorities are prepared to go to bend the law and avoid the legal consequences, but perhaps I can quote from the Southern Evening Echo regarding what happened in Southampton city council:
Southampton city council is to spend £200"—

Mr. Bill Michie: £200?

Mr. Chope: Every penny counts in Southampton.
Southampton city council is to spend £200 on publicising the fact that it wants to raise £200.
The council is banned from directly donating money to the War on Want Women in Nicaragua Appeal. The article states that
it may only incur expenses for people living in its own area. It had wanted the £200 to buy recycled paper for the appeal.
Now it has found a way round the ban. £200 will instead be spent on publicising the fact that a container is to be sited in the Civic Centre entrance hall for the collection of writing materials to send to the impoverished Latin American country.
That is an example of the way in which local authorities under Socialist control will go to any lengths to spend ratepayers' money on their particular pet causes instead of leaving ratepayers to decide whether they want to make donations to such causes.
When dealing with some of the other concerns expressed in Committee, the Minister, in column 290, said that the
proxy, indirect organisations such as those so cleverly advised by Lord Gifford, are dealt with in the Bill.
He also said:
Any conference designed for party political ends, however indirectly supported by the local authority, is covered by the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A 12 December 1985; c. 274-90.]
I hope that the Minister will assure us that those two areas will still be covered by the Bill.
I should like to cite one example. If Southampton Now, which is a monthly magazine published at ratepayers' expense in Southampton publicising the work of the city council, was to include a full page—not an advertisement—setting out something about Militant or CND, it would not be a party political advertisement in the sense mentioned in clause 2(1)(a). In my opinion, it would be an advertisement that would be
likely to affect public support for … a body, cause or campaign … likely to be … identified with, a political party.

Mr. Michie: Which one is CND identified with?

Mr. Chope: Most people would identify CND with the Labour party and the Communist party. I know of no Conservative Member who supports CND.

Mr. Roland Boyes: There is only one Member of Parliament on the national council of CND, to my knowledge, and he is a member of the Liberal party.

Mr. Chope: I am prepared to discuss whether the Liberal party supports CND outside the Chamber but I shall confine my assertions to the Labour party and the Communist party.

Mr. Michie: I want to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets it all in perspective. I take part in CND marches and, although I try to avoid it, I occasionally see a Tory group against the bomb. I assume that is not part of the Labour party.

Mr. Chope: In these issues it is very dangerous to believe all the slogans that one sees. Perhaps members of the Labour party or of the Communist party will carry banners saying that they are members of the Conservative party campaigning against nuclear disarmament. That has happened in the past.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to assure us that the front organisations will be dealt with as effectively by the Government amendment as they would have been before.

Mr. Straw: Coming from Wandsworth, I think that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) is the last person in the House who is entitled to lecture Labour authorities on their conduct. Having looked carefully at the publicity by Southampton city council and compared it with the stuff that Wandsworth puts out at ratepayers' expense, I believe that Southampton is closer to established convention than ever Wandsworth is. The hon. Gentleman and Ministers know that Conservative Wandsworth daily breaks the conventions, using ratepayers' money. The hon. Gentleman has not once had the decency to acknowledge that that has been going on or to criticise his local authority. If ever a man practised double standards, it is the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman gave ludicrous examples, such as what he said about Militant. It defies imagination, particularly in view of what has happened in Southampton, but if Militant were to take space in Southampton Now, of course that would come within the ambit of clause 2, as amended.
As for CND, as my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said, it is not associated with a political party. Its members are drawn from people in a number of political parties, and from people in no political party. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees with CND, it is a gross slur on that organisation to suggest that it is a party political body.
I should like to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) because, unusually, he prayed in aid what I said in Committee. Serious concern was expressed by many voluntary organisations about the likely effect of clause 2(1)(b), which they believed was unintended and gratuitous, and arose from the concern of Ministers to hit front organisations. I do not necessarily agree with that, but I accept that that is a legitimate concern in the context of the Bill. The wording that was used went much wider than that.
I remind the hon. Member for Stirling that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations can hardly be held up as a front organisation for anybody. Its patron is Her Majesty the Queen, its president is Sir John Hedley Greenborough KBE, its chairman is Peter Jay and its honorary treasurer is Randal Haigh. It represents a wide range of voluntary organisations, almost all of which—not even covertly—have no party political association.
Those of us who were members of the Committee know what happened. Many people, including Conservatives and the NCVO, made representations. I am not so vain as to believe that it was hon. Members' representations that made the difference—it was the representations of voluntary organisations outside. The Minister finally accepted that the Bill was likely to have an unintended effect.
The hon. Member for Stirling said that we regarded the wording originally proposed by the Minister in Committee as better than the wording in the Bill. That is true. Like the Minister and other hon. Members, we needed time to look at the Bill. Everybody made that point in Committee. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations wrote to me on 21 January, saying:
our legal advice is that the form of amendment proposed by William Waldegrave before Christmas in Committee would not be sufficient to overcome our concerns.
The NCVO said that, having looked carefully at the effect of the clause.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what he said in Committee when my hon. Friend the Minister proposed as his alternative to clause 2(1)(b) the text that is now amendment No. 33:
I am grateful to the Minister for taking on board the representations from the NCVO and for being so concerned about the matter. In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 17".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 December 1985; c. 275.]
The hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the amendment as it then was and prayed in aid the NVCO. Why is he now changing his position? If my hon. Friend the Minister is right—he argues that amendment No. 33 would weaken the Bill—why is the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of the Opposition, not supporting my amendment, as his purpose in Committee was to try to weaken the Bill?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman survives in his seat, one day he will be in opposition. I wish him all the best when he achieves that happy position. There are many benefits of opposition, not unalloyed. When the hon. Gentleman is in opposition, he will appreciate the tactics that any Opposition have to adopt. There is no great secret. He has only to compare our amendments with the Minister's. We considered the Minister's amendment to be an improvement, but it did not meet our objections. I do not think that there is an enormous difference between what the Minister said he was thinking of in Committee and what he has now proposed. I am surprised that the matter has caused so much argument. I believe that it is better to leave the subsection out altogether because it will remove the dubiety.
I reassure the hon. Member for Stirling, if he still has any worries, that we still regard the Bill as wholly objectionable. We have been trying to explain our objections. The clause covers anything that is published instead of expenditure, and includes words such as
or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect".
The clause will severely and gratuitously affect local authorities, which is why Conservative authorities, not the madmen in Wandsworth but decent Conservative leaders—

Mr. Chope: One of my regrets is that I could not fulfil the obligation of representing my constituents in Southampton, Itchen as well as continuing to look after my council ward in Wandsworth. I have not been a councillor in Wandsworth for the best part of three years, but I stiff pay my rates there as I do in Southampton. I regard Wandsworth council as one of the very best in the country.

Mr. Straw: I wish I had not given way. I have not learnt anything. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to complain about my description of Wandsworth councillors as madmen, but he did not demur from that at all.
This is a thoroughly objectionable Bill. It will put decent Conservative authorities, such as Kent, led by councillor Tony Hart, in a straitjacket, whether clause 2(1)(b) is included or not. We shall continue to object to it. Conservative Members express genuine concern about front organisations. If they read subsection (3), they will. see that there is no possibility of a front organisation getting away with funding by the back door to do things that the local authority is prohibited from doing. Under the Bill local authorities will be prohibited from carrying out a great deal of publicity. No front organisation or even bona fide voluntary organisation will be allowed to do anything.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the argument which has been put forward, that if the Government were to accept amendment No. 33, which I tabled, it would seriously weaken the Bill? If he accepts that, why does he not support it? Or does he, like me, think that if amendment No. 33 were accepted it would strengthen the Bill?

Mr. Straw: Faced with that choice, we prefer amendment No. 4. In Committee we were faced with a different choice.

Mr. Waldegrave: If we had introduced the doubt which, on having taken further advice, I believe our proposed amendment produced, it might in some circumstances have strengthened the Bill, but I was advised that in other circumstances it might have weakened it. That was the nature of the doubt. It would have meant much more complex legal arguments. I was advised that some real and imaginary cases might be construed as weakening the Bill. It was for the removal of doubt both ways that we took this course.

Mr. Straw: I accept entirely the point the Minister is making. Our view in Committee was that the amendment, which is now amendment No. 33, would modify the Bill and bring it closer to its original purpose. Having been presented with the choice today, our view is that the effect of amendment No. 4 is to bring the Bill much closer to its original stated purpose. Since there is also legal doubt about the effect of amendment No. 33, it seems sensible, when faced with that choice—in politics one has to choose—that our choice should be amendment No. 4.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate, but I was at a meeting of the Select Committee on Defence, which is conducting a very important inquiry.
I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The Bill, if amended as my hon. Friend the Minister suggests, will not stop political publicity by local authorities, which is its purpose as set out in the long title. The Bill will merely ban councils from publishing material which is
designed to affect … public support for … a political party".
Therefore, publicity which is not designed "to affect … support" will not be stopped. What constitutes a political party is undefined by the Bill. Would a single-issue campaign fighting an election, for instance, the Campaign to Abolish the GLC, which has fought GLC elections in the past, be regarded as a political party?
Even unamended by the Minister, the Bill is too weak. It merely bans councils from publishing material which is
designed to affect … public support for … a political party".
Groups like CND, whose campaign claims not to support a political party, could still receive money. The Minister's amendment will ensure that the Bill will not prevent councils giving grants to bodies which conduct campaigns and publish propaganda, even though within the terms of clause 2(1) they may not be political parties as such.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Can my hon. Friend give me guidance on whether a group such as Broad Left, which by its very nature comprises the adherence of a number of political parties, such as the

Communist party, the International Marxist Workers' League, the Labour party and so on, could be given money by a local authority and get away with it?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend has made a fair point, which leads me straight on to my next point. Of course the Broad Left may be supported.
I have today obtained a leaked document from the GLC. You will be glad to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the GLC leaks even more than do certain Government Departments. The note is headed:
Note of the Voluntary Sector Forward Funding Sub-Group held on Friday 10 January 1986 at 2.30 pm in Room 136.
Ms. Valerie Wise was in the chair. The minutes, which I am willing to show to other hon. Members, detail the GLC's plan to spend millions of pounds of public money which should rightfully be returned to ratepayers on abolition of the GLC. The minutes show that the money will be given to "umbrella" groups. We learn that there are to be 400 arts grants, 150 ethnic minority committee grants, 53 women's committee grants, and 11 extra staff are to be drafted into the arts department to write reports. Those are all Left-wing groups.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has experience, limited though it may be, of the GLC, because he was a member at one time. It is not worthy of him to dismiss that device as a means of funding Left-wing groups. The fact is that after the abolition of the GLC a large number of arts groups and voluntary organisations, many of which he would support, will go to the wall because they will not have money to fund them. This is a practical way of trying to preserve them. It is not to propagate the views of the Labour party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The debate is getting a little wide. Remarks must be related to political parties.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I shall deal with his remarks in a moment.
The minutes to which I was referring explain how the wording of reports is to be fiddled to bring the section 137 element of the grants down below the limit at which the Secretary of State needs to be consulted. How much is involved? My information is that it is about £70 million, although Valerie Wise says that it will be £25 million. A senior GLC officer, questioned by the Campaign Against Council Corruption, was unable to deny that the higher figure was incorrect. All we know is that the GLC has £200 million splashing about and that it intends to spend all of it before abolition.
What has that to do with clause 2(2)(b)? Many of the groups to be funded under the operation exist purely as propaganda fronts for the purpose of promoting political parties of the Left. I do not say that of all of them, but of many of them. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that the money is to go to respectable organisations to tide them over after abolition. Doubtless that is the case in some instances—

Mr. Tony Banks: In most.

Mr. Leigh: —but what of the others? What will the Institute of Race Relations, as one of the umbrella groups, do with the cash that it receives? To which other groups will it pass the money? I see that Tony Bunyon sits on the


GLC sub-group which is masterminding this massive handout. He is also a member of the editorial committee of the Institute of Race Relations, a Marxist think-tank linked to the Transnational Institute, itself an acolyte of the Soviet propaganda machine.
Millions of pounds are to be handed by the GLC to Left-wing campaigning or propaganda organisations. What is to prevent those organisations, for years after abolition, from using the cash for political publicity purposes whose only real aim is to support the political parties of the Left? Only the provisions of this slim Bill stand between the British public and the onslaught of a multi-million pound publicity blitz. I believe that the Bill will fail in its task. It should not be weakened. It should be strengthened.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Minister said that amendment No. 33 would in some ways strengthen the Bill, but in other ways weaken it. I hope that he will take the opportunity to amplify what he meant by that remark and perhaps give examples of where the Bill will be strengthened and where it will be weakened. It is not beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to ensure that the weaknesses are obliterated and the strengths left isolated.
I fear that by not enacting something in the terms of amendment No. 33 the Bill will be seriously weakened. It will leave a great gap in the law, which will allow all sorts of improper propaganda vehicles to be driven through it. My local authority, Southwark, will take every advantage of the freeway. Therefore, I add my voice briefly to urge the Minister to reconsider amendment No. 33. If the amendment is not passed, the Bill will be weakened and the ratepayers who might have expected some benefit from the Bill will he disappointed.

Mr. David Amess: I support the views expressed by my hon. Friends. I am still not entirely clear about the Government's explanation of the amendment. Perhaps I might put to my hon. Friend the Minister a question that arises out of a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) at our Committee's 10th sitting, at column 397. In his speech my hon. Friend revealed some quite incredible matters about my constituency. My hon. Friend told us that, following the good endeavours of the Campaign Against Council Corruption, Basildon district council responded to an advertisement in Marxism Today and decided to employ a PR company called Union Communications, at a cost to the ratepayers of £150,000. The Campaign Against Council Corruption wrote to the PR company and received the following response:
You ask about Union Communications. Basically we are a small team of professional journalists, PR and design people who have come together to offer to trade unions and Labour local authorities a communications service that beats anything the Tories can lay their hands on. We believe we are succeeding. We have not worked as yet with any CLP's though we would be happy to do so except in so far as when we work for a local authority we invariably get involved with the CLP and help their own PR work. We have shown Basildon council, for instance, how to put 10 per cent. on the Labour vote. Inevitably the CLP was involved and we had to show them what to do.
What I and my constituents in Basildon are worried about, following the opening remarks of the Minister, is whether the Government amendment—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I had forgotten about this organisation. Perhaps I could update the House on its latest antics. One of its directors was responsible for the

advertisement that appeared in the Daily Telegraph, calling for 70 patriotic Scots to subscribe £1,000 to the Save Gartcosh Campaign. Obviously, Union Communications is helping the Labour party in Scotland rather than in Basildon now.

Mr. Amess: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Hon. Members will be aware that it was Union Communications that took those scurrilous advertisements in The House Magazine last year and printed letters by the previous Secretary of State for the Environment which were totally inaccurate. When the Minister is summing up, perhaps he would tell me whether the Government amendment will stop the sort of nonsense that my constituents in Basildon have to put up with.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Like my hon. Friend. I was in the meeting of the Select Committee on the Environment. — [AN HON. MEMBER: "About Westland?"] Many subjects are covered in the Select Committee on the Environment, but fortunately Westland is not yet one of them.
My hon. Friend the Minister should take note of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) because he talked about precisely the situation that I would expect from the well organised network of Labour councils that exchange information and techniques. The Minister need only go back to our experience following the passage of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, to the direct Labour provisions, and to the convention called together by the various Socialist authorities opposed to that legislation. He should read the remarks made at the opening of that convention. I planned to obstruct the law in every possible way, and it set its finest legal minds the task of finding loopholes in the legislation. That is precisely what happened, and the Minister and his colleagues on the Front Bench had to come back to the House on two occasions to tighten up that legislation.
We will now experience precisely the same thing in terms of propaganda. Money will be handed out to front organisations and used for advertising to promote Left-wing causes. Various bodies, such as multi-party organisations of the Broad Left, will find a loophole in the legislation. As it stands, the legislation is far too weak to achieve the purposes which the Minister intends, and he will have to come back to the House to present more legislation. In the meantime, millions of pounds of ratepayers' money will be squandered in propping up the Labour party.

Mr. Waldegrave: The views of my hon. Friends, and in particular of my hon. Friends from the county constituencies, must be heard with respect, because they are largely in the front line of a lot of the abuses about which the House has been hearing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) said that Wandsworth council came into this matter. I think that it was George III who, when told that General Wolfe was mad, said, "I wish he would bite some of my other generals". If the councillors in Wandsworth are mad, I wish that they would bite some of our other councillors. If they did so, we would not need to spend a considerable amount of time arguing about savings in low-spending councils. I should like to see what would happen


if the Wandsworth regime were to be imposed on some of the other allegedly low-spending councils, but I must not get into that argument.
The nature of the tightrope that we are walking has been made evident. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has to deal with an extremely odd council, a naively party political organisation in the way in which it presents itself. I suspect that a ratepayer could take it to court under the existing law in a case as blatant as that. Under the law that we are passing—[Interruption.] The matter of access to the courts worries my hon. Friends. We debated that in Committee. How the civil law works is a matter of real concern, but it is not a matter for this Bill.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) that if we pass legislation that is inherently doubtful and has a phrase in it which legal advisers say could be construed in several different ways, it might well be construed by a court to have a certain meaning. The courts are not allowed to read our debates; they have to look at the words in front of them. They may decide that Parliament must have meant, by putting in certain words, that there was some limitation on clause 2(a). When I originally drafted the Bill, I did not believe that that is what those words meant, but I have been advised that in certain circumstances the words could mean that. In certain circumstances, they could have another meaning.
Inherently doubtful law is bad law, and we should avoid it. As we all know, in Committee and on Report, where one is trying to put a frontier in this new area, there are bound to be difficulties. It is difficult to write law in this matter. All the front organisations referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who opened the debate, will be more straightforwardly caught by clause 2(3), which says:
A local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to a person"—
a person means a body or convention, a legal person—
for the publication of material which the authority are prohibited by this section from publishing themselves.
The CND point is more difficult. Let us for a moment put aside CND. There are certainly Conservative pacifists. I do not want to get into an argument about CND, which in its leadership seems to be an organisation of the Left. It is possible to imagine a group of Conservative Quakers, for example, with pacifist views. If such an organisation, or one that was wholly non-party political, put forward views about defence, it would be wrong if it were funded by local authorities.
That is a matter of limiting the funding under the functions and comes later in the Bill, where we limit the spending. We have had some argument about this. We do not want to stop the poor little parish councils doing some sensible things, but it will limit the area of discretion of their spending on publicity to bring it much more closely into line with their functions. It would be wrong if a Labour Government came into power and abolished the nuclear deterrent. Such a Government would not do that, because the Labour party at that point would have changed its attitude about the matter. If at that time a Conservative council like Wandsworth mounted a campaign for the reintroduction of Trident, that would be wrong. It would be a wrong use of local government resources, by

Conservatives or anybody else. That seems to be met, not so much in this part of the Bill, but by saying that that is stepping outside the proper functions of local authorities.
8 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said, not in an unpleasant way, that I had said that I would not depart from the words in the Bill, yet I had now abolished them. I defend myself by saying that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes know what was going on at that moment in Committee. I had shown a willingness to make a change, which caused the hon. Member for Blackburn to withdraw various amendments. I want to put it clearly on the record that I in no way intended to trick the hon. Gentleman into withdrawing his amendments and then return with a measure which went back to the original intention. That would have been dishonourable. I did not take that as meaning that if we could achieve the objective of removing the NCVO and still get the front organisations—which I am advised we have done—I would not find other ways of doing that.
My hon. Friend did not accuse me unkindly, but I can assure the House that I am aware that my hon. Friends would like me to go a great deal further in many respects. We cannot go a great deal further without catching all sorts of organisations that we do not want to catch, so we must find a compromise. I believe that we have found it, and I urge hon. Members to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boyes: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 25, after 'party', insert
'save where such a person is a member of the authority publishing the material'.
This is a squalid Bill or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said:
In almost every respect, this is a wretched Bill.
—[Official Report, 18 November; Vol. 87, c. 57.] 
It is also an unnecessary Bill produced by a nervous but calculating and bitter group of people. The Government's policies have been exposed for what they are—cynical and destructive.
The Bill has been produced simply because local authorities have used legal, well established and acceptable means to defend themselves and the people whom they represent. They have scored important victories in convincing people of the merit of their arguments. Local authorities have done no more than explain to their electorate the consequences to their services of the Government's actions. Major campaigns have been mounted against rate capping and the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
In paragraph 221, Widdicombe says:
Local Government has an important and well established voice on matters affecting its responsibilities. It is important at all times, but perhaps particularly in times of wide political differences, that our political system should accommodate the free expression of opposing views, and we have said that it is right for local authorities to be able to explain their view on controversial matters affecting them. In the recent context that includes issuing information about abolition and rate-capping.
In paragraph 235 Widdicombe says:
Under its conventions, the government of the day is entitled to provide information about its proposed legislation and its likely effect; it seems to us only equitable that bodies affected, in this case local authorities, should have the right to provide information in reply. That way the public can be sure of being fully informed.


The Bill is particularly contemptible for a number of reasons but I shall mention two in particular. Local authorities have done no more than the Government do —in fact, the Government are often extremely party politically oriented in some of their publicity—except that the Government appear to have an unlimited budget for their spending on advertising.
The Government asked Mr. Widdicombe to chair an inquiry into local authority publicity and, after he had received a substantial amount of both written and oral evidence, spent hours of deliberation and analysis and produced an interim report. In another act of political spite and vindictiveness, the Department of the Environment has ignored many of his findings and gone way beyond them in the Bill. The Widdicombe report was clearly a big disappointment for the Government, but having given the inquiry team a task to carry out, it is a disgrace to go so far beyond its findings. I shall illustrate that most vividly.
Clause 2 identifies two points to which local authorities, and ultimately the courts, have to have special regard in deciding the legality of any publicity material. The first of those, subsubsection (2)(a), states:
particular regard shall be had to whether the material refers to a political party or to persons identified with a political party".
I emphasise the words
or to persons identified with a political party".
I want to examine what that means in reality and consider the difficulties that it will raise for both members and officers of local authorities.
I have served on two tiers of local government and I have been a senior officer on a third tier. I am quite aware that certain councillors are viewed as being particularly important both by their colleagues and by the citizens that they represent. For example, the mayor of Sunderland will be invited to literally hundreds of functions during his year in office. He will make an almost equal number of speeches, and because he is the proud holder of his position and representative of the council, he will want to praise its achievements and mention its problems. But, according to the Government, he had better not be quoted in a council publication. What nonsense.
What if the mayor is simply photographed outside a building—a house or a small factory unit—built by the local authority for the benefit of some of its electorate and then the photograph is reproduced in the local authority newsletter, magazine or whatever? That in itself will be an offence, yet I would argue that it is correct that such pictures should be published.
Other councillors, as well as mayors, play an important part on local authorities, either by the force of their personality or their position—for example, the leader of a council or the chairman of a major committee. When I was an assistant director of social services my department would be responsible for the building of a new resource. Under this Government building new resources, even essential ones, has become an historic event for many local authorities due to the cuts and penalties imposed on local authorities, but let us assume that a local authority has built a new resource and then got either a local councillor or the chairman of the social services committee to open it. Under the Bill it would be an offence to publish any picture of the building and the councillor opening it in the regular council publication. Having been elected by the electorate upon a Labour party ticket, such a councillor would be identified with a political party. But the electorate, as we

all well know, would much prefer a picture with people on it than a building alone. If anyone doubts that such pictures are much more interesting to the electorate, they need only examine the pictures in any newspaper.
How would the courts deal with such a matter, particularly when another factor has to be taken into consideration? A person identified with a political party might be interpreted in the courts as someone so identified in the minds of the electorate. An example could be a councillor who gets substantial media coverage for his political views. What happens when that councillor gets publicity in his role as a councillor?
There is also the case of the hard-working, efficient councillor who has no inclination for publicity, who makes his points in such a way that they are not attractive to the press. Could that councillor carry out the odd official function and have his picture in the council newsletter without that being an offence? That shows how ludicrous and ridiculous the Bill is.
What will the position be on official reports and in particular the annual accounts of a local authority? Often the leader or appropriate chairperson will sign a foreword or an introduction to a report. That adds interest for the electorate and shows that that publication does not come from the bureaucrats but from the elected representatives. If David Blunkett from Sheffield council were to sign a report, would that be different from a report signed by the leader of a smaller council which did not make national headlines?
Many local authorities will face these contradictions and problems. That is why the lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee. So many cases will have to be tested in the courts. The Opposition amendment will clearly exclude references to council members while retaining the ban on knocking copy against national figures. We believe that Widdicombe intended that.

Mrs. Rumbold: First, rather cheekily for someone who has so recently come to the Dispatch Box, I congratulate the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on his first appearance there.
The Bill in no sense tries to stifle the right and proper work done by local or national politicians. It does not ignore the fact that local government has politicians in the same sense as Parliament. Therefore, when the Government examined the provisions, we took particular care on the nature of publicity and how and whether publicity should be prohibited. We examined the definitions of how and whether that would occur. We also looked at the content of the Bill. As I said earlier, the content of the publicity is the acid test of whether or not it will come within the Bill.
The examples mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington were effectively countered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government when he showed how the Labour-controlled authority in his constituency could produce an annual report signed by the leader of Bristol city council. That report contained references to what the city council had achieved and mentioned in the accounts that the city council could not, because of Government contraints, carry out the policies that it would have preferred. My hon. Friend was not saying that those were not proper and sensible references to the local authority's work and its function.


I can say without fear or favour that it is acceptable that a member of a local authority should have his name on a document —as the leader of Bristol council had —provided that he is not publishing material which could be interpreted under the Bill as designed to canvas support for a political party.
In the same way, I do not believe that, under the Bill, politicians in local government or in Parliament, when speaking on their own behalf, can be caught under the Bill. An individual member of a local authority might be caught under the Bill if he was speaking on behalf of the local authority in a material sense and was likely to be reported in published material making points that could be interpreted as politically persuasive.
On every test that can fairly be used on the Bill, the amendment is unnecessary. I therefore ask the House to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Squire: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 32, at end insert—
'(4) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a local authority from publicising any provision service or facility made by the authority provided that—

(a) any such publicity shall refer only to the relevant provision service or facility as being policies of the authority itself and shall not describe them as the policies of any group or party that may make up the authority wholly or partly and,
(b) the authority takes all reasonable steps to ensure that any such publicity is presented in such a way as to promote the authority itself and not any political party. (5) Subject to the provisos in subsection (4) above a local authority may publicise any provision service or facility made by any other authority responsible for its area and the provisos in subsection (4) shall be construed accordingly.'.

We happy but small band of brothers and one sister have been sitting here for nearly five hours and have heard a succession of amendments whose starting point is the belief that the Bill as currently drawn is not sufficiently clear and will provide a veritable lawyers' paradise. As hon. Members know, the joint submission from the three local authority associations specifically says that clause 2
is so imprecise, with so many words and expressions needing subjective evaluation, that it looks like a charter for extensive litigation.
I share those fears and the purpose of the amendment is to try to clarify the clause.
We will all be aware now that the overall aim of clause 2 is to stop councils spending ratepayers' money on party political propaganda, either directly or by front organisations. I fear that, as drafted, the clause will stop a number of other activities which hon. Members would want to continue.
For the benefit of my many hon. Friends present, I give the example of a Conservative council which may wish to encourage tenants to buy their houses under section 41 of the Housing Act 1980. Under that Act, councils are obliged to publish information explaining the right to buy in simple terms. The Bill would not prohibit that, but a council may decide upon an active policy of encouraging tenants to exercise their right to buy. Obviously such a policy could be effective only if it was publicised as a policy to encourage tenants to buy. Such a policy would be pointless if the tenants did not know about it. The

council would have to publicise the policy and the publicity for the benefits of the right to buy or of owner-occupation might
be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—

(a) a political party".

That might happen under clause 2(1). The opposition might therefore be able to prevent publication of that policy.
If a Labour council adopted an extensive community grant giving policy—whether one agrees with that or not—that would be the policy of the council and the people's redress would, as ever, be via the ballot box. As long as the policy was in operation, the council might be prevented from publicising it. Yet as long as that was council policy, it is clearly preferable that it is publicised as such. It is preferable because the more the electorate know about such a policy, the better can they hold councillors accountable at the next election. If the policy is not publicised, that can only benefit those in the know. The only beneficiaries will be those organisations connected with the council or councillors. The public will not know of such a policy and will be unable to take advantage of it by applying for grant.
The Bill will have the opposite effect to what the Government intend. The front organisations, so to speak, will be aware of the policy, whereas the public will not. If a council has a policy, it is desirable that the public should be aware of it.
I give a further example—hon. Members will rapidly understand why I suggest it. Local government elections in London are due in May. A party—it does not matter which—may decide that if it wins the election it will promote an open government public participation policy which goes beyond the requirements of my Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. For example, it may wish to extend the Act to working parties or adopt Leeds standing order 65 which grants access to any document, not just agenda items, and it may wish to grant the public speaking and questioning rights. If the opposing party disagrees strongly, the issue becomes an election issue. If the party that wants to introduce such policies wins the election, it could introduce the policies, but could it publish them? If the Bill, as drafted, becomes law, I doubt it.
Clause 2(1)(a) prohibits the publication of any material which
can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—

(a) a political party".

The council would have an open government public participation policy that it could not publicise.
I have given those three examples. I shall not give more, although I am sure that other hon. Members could give further examples. The Bill catches things that it should not catch, and, I suspect, was never designed to catch.
The amendment would avoid that difficulty and allow councils to publicise their services and amenities without mentioning any political party. The publicity could say, for example, "Bromley council urges all tenants to take up their right to buy for the following reasons," or, "Lewisham council has a community grant scheme which we urge all local organisations to read carefully to see whether they are eligible." The council could use ratepayers' money to publicise only its policy. It would be up to the parties to use their time and money to point out


that those policies were the policies of a Labour or a Conservative-controlled council. That is the reasonable split for which we should be aiming in the legislation.
I shall deal briefly with my proposed new subsection (5). Anxiety has been expressed that a further consequence of the Bill as drafted is that it would prevent local authorities corporately, or their members individually, from commenting upon matters of legitimate public interest or promoting new methods on matters where the authority is not the responsible authority. Alcohol and drug abuse are examples that spring to mind. I can well understand that many local authorities might wish to play a considerable part in any campaign on those matters, to issue public comment and to assist the county council's policy. It is the county council which is responsible for health matters. The campaign would fail if district authorities were unable to take part in any such campaign.
Similarly, it might be difficult, under the Bill's present wording, for local authorities to promote crime prevention measures because responsibility for such matters does not lie with them. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has spoken to me on these subjects and I know that we agree about much of the Bill. If there is some drafting error in my amendment—like all hon. Members, I stand to have my drafting corrected—I hope that my hon. Friend will none the less accept the thrust of what I say and agree that it will be possible to pursue the matter in another place.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed amendment, at end add—
'(6) Subsections (4) and (5) above apply to publicity material issued by a voluntary organisation where the publicity is issued—

(a) with the use of financial or other assistance given to the voluntary organisation by a local authority; and
(b) the publicity is issued in pursuance of the aims and objectives of the voluntary organisation.'.

The Opposition agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) said. I hope that that does not undermine a fine career. He has always spoken up for local authorities and for freedom of speech. We congratulate him on the freedom award that he won recently. The hon. Gentleman made an important point. I hope that the Minister will treat it with the seriousness that it deserves, notwithstanding the fact that we support it.
The amendment brings voluntary organisations within the ambit of clause 2(4) and (5). We have spent considerable time discussing voluntary organisations, and I do not need to stress again their importance to local communities. They are legitimately funded by local authorities. We believe that local authorities should not be prohibited from publicising their services and that voluntary organisations should be included in that provision.
I hope that the Minister will treat the matter seriously and not say that the amendment is unnecessary. Ministers should realise that anxieties are felt on both sides of the political divide about the operation of the Bill as drafted. If the amendment were accepted, it would go a long way to removing those anxieties. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, will she consider and raise the matter in another place?

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I am interested in the Bill and I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). I do not know what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say. I hope that

she will make some sympathetic noises in favour of the amendment. As with all amendments that come from the Back Benches, it is easy for Ministers to say that an amendment is not properly drafted. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch accepts that that possibility exists. If that is the case, my hon. Friend could obtain some help and perhaps have the matter dealt with in another place.
I favour the amendment because I believe that local government must publicise what it does, whichever party is in office, because if it is doing something good it is worth telling the public. One party may publicise an activity that it supports. I see no point in that support being hidden under a cloak. It is as well to tell the electorate about it. I also believe that it is fair to those who work on a programme that the electorate should know about it. If the activity is opposed by the other party, the fact that it has been publicised will mean that the opposition will also obtain some publicity.
I should hate to see anything in the Bill which would put a blanket over the ability of local authorities to inform electors and others in an area who are affected by local services. The Bill would then result in overkill.
Some people—not perhaps my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—might say that the trouble is that what we are out to stop is the publicising of the most crazy things that happen in local government from time to time and that have happened rather more frequently in the past year or two, where those in charge of councils go berserk, spend money on things that the public would never support, and do so without giving any advance notice of their intentions. To me, that is all the more reason why these plans should be publicised.
8.30 pm
I do not believe that publicity for crazy programmes of one sort or another is of benefit to whichever political party indulges in it. I have an idea that had we not done away with the GLC, the electors would have done away with it, simply because they were fed up with the publicising of so many crazy activities which had cost them money. They would have refused to support such nonsense any longer.
Even if the amendment is not exactly word perfect, we ought to accept the spirit of it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make sympathetic noises in favour of it.

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand and appreciate the concern that led my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) to put down the amendment. I would do him no injustice if I said that his concern sprang from a very real knowledge, acquired over many years, of work in local government and so arose from his practical experience and his anxiety to ensure that in bringing the Bill before the House we draw up legislation which does not inadvertently act contrary to good practice in local government. His intentions are good.
In moving the amendment, my hon. Friend gave a number of examples with which I should like to deal. He asked us to suppose that it was Government policy, as indeed it is, to allow council tenants to purchase their houses. How, he asked, would a local authority tell its electors that such a policy existed? What about the efforts made by the council to inform the electorate of tenants' rights to purchase council-owned property under a Government policy which the council itself had adopted? Provided that the information is couched in terms which are straightforwardly advisory and informative, setting out


clearly the rights of individual tenants as dictated by Government policy and adopted by the local authority, and provided that that information contains nothing that is offensive under the Bill, it is absolutely right that those people should be informed of their rights. It would not be contrary to the intention of the Bill for the local authority to make available in libraries or elsewhere such information as part of its policy, and to use this way of informing the electorate of the rights of council tenants.

Mr. Squire: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has just said. My concern is that what she has said so far implies a whole series of decisions which will require a council ultimately to guess whether court action will follow. My amendment tries to lay down that, in broad terms, provided the authority makes no mention—in the particular example about housing — of being a Conservative authority, it ought to be able to proceed in the knowledge that it will not, in all probability, face that charge.

Mrs. Rumbold: I think I understand what my hon. Friend says. I do not believe that at present a local authority officer, when composing a notice giving tenants information about their rights, would do more than advise councillors that the best way of proceeding would be to give strictly factual information. At the present time, were a responsible local authority in charge, it is most unlikely that a responsible officer would do other than advise his council that it would be best to give such information in a strictly factual way and not embroider it with political adjectives or slogans.
It is only because some authorities litter such information with flowery political messages that the Bill has been introduced. I do not believe that, even under present local government legislation, we would have had to introduce this Bill if it were not that some authorities have taken liberties to the extent that we have seen.
Some time and care will have to be spent on preparing such information. Authorities which try to push information into the sphere of political propaganda will certainly and properly be advised by their officers that such action would be covered by this Bill when it is finally enacted, in the same way as officers have to advise councillors of their duty under the law in many other respects when they are taking decisions.
Another of my hon. Friend's examples related to local authority members campaigning in an election. One party may say that it intends to have open government within the authority, if it is elected, and that there will be freedom of access for the public. Members may make that part of their campaign. Perhaps the opposition has been foolish enough to tell the electors that if opposition councillors are elected they will do exactly the opposite—that there will be no freedom of access, that everything will be done in secret and that the electorate will have no further opportunity to say a word about policy. I put that in terms of the ridiculous.
Were the party which had campaigned on the freedom of access ticket to be subsequently elected, it would put that particular policy through the council. Its elected members would vote on it as council policy. Once it had been adopted as council policy, the council would have every right to put out information to its electorate, telling people that they were welcome to observe council

meetings or to attend committee meetings on such and such a date, and if they wished to inform themselves about certain matters on the council's agenda, and so on, that information could be made available. These provisions already exist in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. People can purchase council minutes if they so wish or copies of any publications put out by the council. I do not believe that there is anything in the Bill to prevent those activities from being carried out. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch will accept my reassurances.
Subsection (5) of the amendment could extend local authority publicity powers and allow local authorities to produce persuasive or informative publicity about any service or facility provided by the local authority or, as my hon. Friend pointed out, if it were a district authority, by the county council authority. My hon. Friend gave the example of publicity about a campaign mounted by a county council's social services authority, giving information about how to counter drug abuse.
He asked whether it would be possible for the district council to assist with the distribution of such material. I believe that the material must be considered in the context of the way in which it is published, and my hon. Friend accepts that point. We would not wish to impose unreasonable restrictions on a local authority's information processes. There is a case for considering the scope of section 142, to see whether something could be done to accommodate the fear that is expressed in subsection (5) of the amendment. If that is possible, we will undertake to do so, but I would prefer not to accept the wording of my hon. Friend's amendment.
Having spoken at some length on that part of the amendment, I should like to welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) for the thrust of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked us to consider the amendment to the amendment. We have discussed at length the ability of voluntary organisations to publish material which is issued in pursuance of their aims and objectives. If such material is prohibited under clause 2, it should not be published at the ratepayers' expense. I do not believe that the amendment would enhance the Bill. I ask the House not to accept the amendment.

Mr. Squire: It is not my intention to delay the House long. There are many amendments ahead of us.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her latter comments. I am glad that she will consider whether the thrust of my amendment could be introduced elsewhere. As her statement on the first part of the amendment could hardly been more clear cut, I can scarcely press for an opening there. I urge my hon. Friend to bear in mind that there are voices shouting alarm. I should be grateful if she would reconsider the matter.

Mrs. Rumbold: indicated assent.

Mr. Squire: I am glad to see my hon. Friend nodding assent. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Boyes: I beg to move amendment No 12, in page 2, line 35 at end insert—
'(aa) in subsection (1) delete the words "on application".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 32, in page 3, line 4 leave out
'the authority' and insert
'local government and matters affecting an authority's services within its area'.

Mr. Boyes: I hope to detain the House only briefly. I am aware that there is an important debate to follow.
Section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 has basically two powers—a general publicity power, and the power on which I wish to concentrate my remarks, which is a more specific power under subsection (1). The amendment seeks to delete the words "on application" from subsection (1). Section 142(1) states:
the services available within the area of the authority provided either by the authority or by other authorities or by government departments or by charities and other voluntary organisations, and other information as to local government matters affecting the area.
People must have access to such information "on application."
The Government are making a vital and fundamental change to section 142. Local authorities' general publicity is to be restricted to
information relating to the functions of the authority
instead of
information on matters relating to local government.
This vital change will have serious repercussions for local authorities, which are attempting to carry out serious policies on behalf of the people they represent. I shall give two or three relevant examples of the services carried out by local authorities which would probably be curtailed by the change.
The clause is totally unacceptable. To invent a "Colemanballs", it is miles outside the intention of the Widdicombe report, which recommended that section 142 should be unchanged so that a local authority could continue to provide information on matters related to local government. By restricting publicity, clause 3 is directly opposed to the Widdicombe recommendations.
The Government's proposals are not only opposed by the Opposition and the local authorities, but they are contrary to the spirit of the Widdicombe report, paragraph 134 of which states that the role of local authorities
goes further than the simple delivery of specific statutory services. Certainly we would not wish to take a narrow view. Local authorities can make a valuable contribution to the welfare of their area and to the development of national policies that are of direct consequence to their responsibilities.
Paragraph 221, which I have already quoted this evening, states:
local government has an important and well established voice on matters affecting its responsibilities.
Publicity campaigns, including issuing press releases against Government policies, on important issues of grave concern to local authorities and to the welfare of inhabitants would be stopped by clause 3(1).
My constituency has very high unemployment. One person in three is out of work, and the local authority wants to encourage investment and the creation of jobs. However, as one of the functions of a local authority may not be to deal direct with economic development initiatives, there are genuine doubts whether publicity aimed at attracting industry and commerce to the area would be permitted.
Sunderland, Seaburn and Roker and other parts have important tourist attractions. One of my greatest pleasures is to get on a train on a Thursday night or Friday morning to get out of this place and back up to a more civilised,

beautiful area. My colleagues in local authorities want to expand and extend their tourist industry. If it cannot be demonstrated that that is one of the authority's functions, what will be the consequences for it following the changes to section 142?
Dover district council opposes the Channel tunnel. Clearly that is not one of its functions, but I would defend its right to explain the environmental consequences of the tunnel for the area. Indeed, I would go further. The building of the Channel tunnel will have serious repercussions for industry in my area. An area of high unemployment may become one of even higher unemployment. The consequences of the change will mean that if authorities provide information, they will contravene the Bill when it becomes law.
Widdicombe made it clear that he wanted section 142 to be left unchanged. The Government, having asked him to consider publicity in local authorities, have found his report unacceptable, and have introduced a series of clauses well outside the spirit of the Widdicombe report.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My amendment is related to a long discussion that we lad in Committee. It raises some important aspects with which we never got to grips. In Committee Conservative colleagues and I argued whether the word "conscience" was effective. We were worried that Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament literature and the Leeds booklet on nuclear-free zones would still be permissible under the council's provisions for an emergency planning committee, which is now renamed the peace and emergency planning committee. There is also a unit to go with it. Assuming that my hon. Friend the Minister is right in saying that such publicity would be prevented under the Bill, the clause, if it is not amended, could be too restrictive in many important ways. They have been brought to my attention by councils and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
Regarding
information relating to the functions of the authority",
what is the position of a district council that wishes to publish information, for example, on drugs? As the majority of our cities are in shire districts, could they publish information on matters such as homelessness, vandalism in the city, drug dependency, and alcohol abuse, which are not functions for non-metropolitan district councils? Fire hazards and safety matters are county matters. Could cities such as Leicester, Nottingham, Portsmouth and Southampton advertise anything about education or social services, which are county matters? So long as the words relate
to the functions of the authority
there is grave doubt whether such councils could proceed with some of their valuable campaigns.
I would not claim that my amendment was perfect, and my hon. Friend may say that it goes back too far to the original wording. If genuine local government functions are county functions by definition but operative at district level, the local government body concerned should be able to activate campaigns and publish information about those functions. The previous wording was
local government matters affecting the area.
That is broad brush, and includes almost anything that we consider in the House. I have tried to make my amendment more specific about matters that are operative within a district's area.
My amendment refers to


matters affecting an authority's services within its area.
In Committee we did not discuss private legislation. Many councils have extended their functions by bringing to the House local private Acts. That needs to be examined. I hope that my hon. Friend can make the position clear regarding authorities that have powers under such Acts which enable them to provide services not covered by the general law—in other words, not within the scope of their normal functions.
Although I have always argued for the wording to be tough and tight to prevent publicity on CND matters and nuclear-free zones, I have become convinced that the clause may exclude some areas where services are involved which are not at present among the functions laid down by general legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I ask the Minister to look positively at both amendments. They deal with a substantial criticism of one of the new elements introduced by the Government. The points have been put simply, and I wish to reaffirm the strength of the view of those affected that there is no need to tamper with section 142 of the 1972 Act.
Amendment No. 12 provides the only method left to us to ensure that section 142 remains as close as possible to what it had been. As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said, the purpose of section 142 is to make sure that publicity can be given to matters that are relevant to the administration of local government in any particular area. A good example is the statement on the Channel fixed link. Clearly, the Bill will have nothing to do with the powers of local district councils or the Kent county council, but there is substantial interest in it because it will affect the functions of all the county councils. What happens will affect transport and housing functions, and the like. I respect the honest intent behind both the amendments to find a way to meet some of the Government's concerns. I share the concern about section 142. I want to ensure that we allow publicity on matters affecting Government services.
It is ludicrous to imagine that local authorities exist only to perform a limited set function and to say nothing about anything else. They are there as the sole responsible elected agencies and authorities to speak for local interests, the local area and local needs.

Mr. Madden: That is why the Government do not like them.

Mr. Hughes: Often, when Government do not take sufficient account of local needs, local authorities have to make more noise. The more the Government ignore them, the more noise is made. It is only now that the Government have decided that they cannot any longer tolerate this series of criticisms. That says nothing about local authorities, which vary in political colour and control. It says something about the deafness of central Government to local authorities.
I ask the Government to stick with Widdicombe, to stand by the result of the interim report and to wait for the later, fuller report, if they want to go further, but certainly not substantially to restrict the effect of the good and well-functioning section 142, about which there is no substantial complaint. Both amendments should be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Roy Galley: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) made some valid points, and I should like to support him, perhaps from a slightly different standpoint. Substitution of "services" for "functions" and the other parts of his amendment may assist in the interpretation of the Bill. It may well cut both ways, but substitution of that word may alleviate fears on both sides of the House.
We need to go a little further. Will the use of the word "functions" in this part of the Bill clearly prevent local authorities from diverting public money to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and other such bodies? My hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the debate on clause 2(1)(b) that we must make clear law. He suggested that the concerns raised earlier during that debate would be dealt with when we consider those parts of the Bill relating to "functions."
It is clear from the Bill as it stands that use of the word "functions" will prohibit expenditure by local authorities on foreign affairs, on defence matters and on support for one-sided nuclear disarmament and for strikes. Sheffield city council doled out considerable amounts of money to support striking miners. The Bill as it stands might not prohibit local authorities from giving money to particular unions to support strikes, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would give me some information about the legal advice that he has been given.

Mr. Michie: The hon. Gentleman's comments are like a red rag to a bull, and red is the right colour. Sheffield city council did not support the strike financially. Obviously, in principle it supported the strike, but finance went to families in need. That makes a lot of difference.

9 pm

Mr. Galley: That is a matter for interpretation. The use to which that money was put is still a matter of interpretation. Some of ratepayers' money was diverted to a particular cause with political overtones.
Social security is not a matter for a local authority. Will this Bill as it stands prohibit the use of ratepayers' money if a local authority publishes a tendentious and biased information leaflet on social security? These are still matters about which Conservative Members are properly concerned. If this wording is to remain, we need to be more clear about what are "functions". I think that the word "services" would be better, because it would relate to the actions of a local authority in providing services in its area under the terms of amendment No. 32.
Clause 4 refers to the code of practice. It may be possible to define fairly closely what are and what are not the functions and/or services of a local authority. This would achieve greater clarity.
Obviously, the Bill as it stands will result in contentious litigation and a vast amount of argument. I hope that it is possible to make the legislation clearer.

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall try to be brief, as I always want to co-operate with hon. Members.
The worries expressed have been reasonable. We must take care to ensure that we have not got ourselves into difficulties. We have not gone so far in the Bill as to worry the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) in the way that he purported to be worried. Local authorities have a specific power under section 144 of the Local Government Act 1972 to attract tourism. They have


a "function", which they can publicise. Any planning authority in the area of the end of the proposed Channel tunnel must be concerned with the legislation. Many of the matters which at first sight might be expected to cause problems need not worry us.
The amendment widens the clause too far. We understand that there is a policy dispute between the Government and the Opposition. This clever amendment is the reverse of our intention, which is to make expenditure on information relate more closely to what local authorities actually provide for their citizens.
There is a fundamental, interesting and ancient argument between the Government and the Opposition over whether local authorities are like little sovereign governments, or whether they are providers of services. I am glad that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is in the Chamber, because I was brought up to believe that Berwick-upon-Tweed remained, until recently—perhaps it still does—in a state of war with Napoleon.

Mr. Beith: With the Russians.

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. That was tolerable as one of those ancient, antique and enjoyable anomalies that we have in the United Kingdom. However, we are moving too near to using that precedent on more serious matters. We are nearly "at separate peaces declared" because of local authorities' actions. This does not damage the United Kingdom in any way, but it brings the concept of local government into disrepute and ridicule. Sometimes, it unfairly impinges on national party political matters.
I know that there would be a tremendous uproar from the other side if there were a Labour Government who had a different defence policy and if, by the swing of the pendulum, there were Conservative local authorities everywhere, as there usually are in those circumstances, which began campaigning with huge posters all around London for the reintroduction of Trident, and so on. I have no doubt that there would be the most frightful caterwauling from the other side. Our principle is that information must be brought back to some relationship with local authority functions, because local authorities have no functions other than those in the statute.
To some extent, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and for Halifax (Mr. Galley) were putting both sides of this case and pointing out the tightrope. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West rightly said, "Let us not open up such a loophole that we have major problems again." My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax was worried about CND.
There is a worry at the back of our minds—it was brought to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West—about what parish councils can do in relation to the services of other local authorities. We shall look again at this aspect. It is a difficult matter. I assure my hon. Friends that we shall not open up too wide a loophole, and that we shall consider this and perhaps introduce an amendment in another place to meet the legitimate concerns that have been put to the House.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Boyes: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
'(1A) In the said sections 142, after subsection (2) insert—

(2A) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that for the purposes of this Act, section 137 of this Act is a function of a local authority.
(1B) In the said section 88, after subsection (2) insert—
(2A) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that for the purposes of this Act, section 137 of this Act is a function of a local 
authority.".'.
The purpose of the amendment is to put into statute what is already established in case law. As presently drafted, the Local Government Act 1972 enables local authorities to publish information on matters relating to local government under section 142(1) and 2(a), and the Bill would limit section 142 information to the functions of the individual local authority. A district council has no social services function, and accordingly it would not be able under section 142 to publish information on, for example, advice for the disabled.
Many of us are concerned about limiting the ability of local authorities to explain to the people their rights to receive the services and materials which a social services department has to offer. I was an assistant director of a social services department, and I was aware of the full array of services and materials that it had to disburse. The department's concern was that it could not always deliver the services and provisions to the increasing number of individuals who wanted and needed them. That department would not have objected to any other tier of the local authority in its area, or to any voluntary organisation, explaining its functions.
If section 137 is itself a function of the authority, as we propose in the amendment, the authority will spend money under that section on information on social services, for example, and will incur further expenditure on the provision of that information under section 142. The statute has already been agreed upon in a number of cases that have come before the courts, most recently in R. v. District Auditor for Leicester Ex Parte Leicester City Council, in September 1985.
I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne), who this afternoon showed himself to be extremely interested in the legal process. I have read his qualifications in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" and I am sure that with his previous interests and those which he has now he will be able to explain to me fully what my last sentence means. I confess that I read it from a brief. If he is unable to do so, I am sure that the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government. with all his disciplines, will be able to do so.
The purpose of the amendment is to achieve something quite simple. We wish to put on the statute book that which has already been determined in case law. As section 137 has been subject to legal scrutiny in a number of instances, it would appear appropriate to take the opportunity of clarifying its status in the Bill. This would help both the courts and the district auditor. It should be stressed that the amendment does not seek to change the law. Its purpose is to give it the merit of being enshrined in statute. The amendment to section 88 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 would serve to make Scottish law consistent with English law.

Mrs. Rumbold: As I understand it, the amendment would provide for an explicit declaration that, for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972, section 137 would be a function of the local authority. The amendment would cause an equivalent amendment to be made to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.


It was made clear in Committee that the Government's view is that section 137 is a function for the purposes of section 142. Looking at the matter from that perspective, we do not consider that the amendment is necessary. If a local authority undertakes some form of economic development, or any other development that is authorised by section 137, it can produce information about it under the amended section 142, because that relates to the functions of a local authority. I accept, however, that this may need to be examined. We must ensure that there is no difficulty about the interpretation of the Bill. If, therefore, it is thought that this matter ought to be examined further, it will be looked at again in another place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I speak only to encourage the Minister to do what she has hinted she will do. The Widdicombe report said that the roles of various sections of local government law could usefully be clarified. We must ensure, for example, that section 137 is not seen as allowing publicity, but we must ensure that it is seen to be an important right for local authorities to spend money upon what they choose. It must also be confirmed as a function of local authorities. I hope that when the Bill reaches another place the Minister will allow an amendment of this kind to be incorporated in the Bill. That would be helpful. I believe that the Widdicombe committee would wish that to be done. I urge the Minister to continue along this path until a proper end is reached that incorporates words similar to these.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4

CODES OF RECOMMENDED PRACTICE AS REGARDS PUBLICITY

Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in page 3, line 31, after 'section', insert
'or any alterations to a code'.
No. 21, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'the House of Commons' and insert 'each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Strang: This group of three amendments relates to the code of practice, an outline of which the Minister kindly circulated to the Standing Committee before Christmas. Our intention is to take this opportunity to emphasise further our concern about its contents. Some aspects of it confirm our worst fears about the Government's intentions. A number of the references in the code of practice confirm our view that it is vague and that it will be difficult for local authorities to know precisely what they are allowed to communicate to their electors.
Amendment No. 20 would remove the requirement that the code of practice should come before the House of Commons for approval. Amendment No. 29 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). I am not certain whether his amendment is necessary. However, as it clarifies the position, there

might be some advantage in accepting it. We do not want the code to be altered without it first coming before the House of Commons.
It may seem ironic that amendment No. 21 requires the code of practice to come before both Houses of Parliament for approval. I say "ironic" because of the Labour party's policy on the House of Lords. However, as long as there is a House of Lords, it is sensible to stick to the normal convention that a code of practice of this nature should require a resolution of each House of Parliament. That does not, of course, apply to financial resolutions. For that reason, we believe that it would be sensible if amendment No. 21 were accepted in order fully to regularise the position.
The Minister will recall that when the Bill was in Committee there was no requirement for a code of practice to come before either House. The Minister in his speech suggested flexibility on that matter. Therefore, I think he should agree to accept amendment No. 21, and perhaps also amendment No. 29, which regularises the position.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is important that the Government should realise how much opposition there is to the present code of practice and the lack of control over it. The overwhelming view of those who studied the code of practice produced by the Government in December is that, in the words of the local government press, it is "outrageous" and that it is well on the way to the Ministry of Truth.
The problem facing the Government in December was that they had suddenly to produce a code of practice. To show that there was something on which to peg clause 4, they produced the first code that they could lay their hands on. That is a generous interpretation. The Government know that what they have produced as an example of a code of practice for local government would encompass all sorts of unpaid publicity. It has a dubious statutory basis and would have to come to this House for approval.
The amendment gives the House and local government a guarantee of proper scrutiny of whatever code sees the light of day. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the proper scrutiny is required, but, above all, that there will be nothing as horrendous as the present code of practice, which is the only example the Government have given us.

Dr. Hampson: I think that the meaning of amendment No. 29 is perfectly obvious. In Committee, the Minister stressed how the amendment would provide flexibility and the freedom to revise and alter as the circumstances warrant. That is sensible, and it is eminently attractive to have different codes to meet the needs of different authorities.
If we require the code to be laid before the House, it is necessary that any alterations to it should come before the House. This may be something of a deterrent, for it would make it more difficult for such things to be jiggled with.
If I may extrapolate on this, there is, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, deep concern within local authorities over the draft. It is important to recognise that it is a draft, put together rapidly by the Minister to help the Committee to see what areas might be included in the code. The House should make clear to the Minister that some aspects in his code will lead to severe problems. The code, or any alterations to it, should apply strictly to corporate decisions of a


council or the ruling group on a council. The present draft covers not only press releases—there has been tremendous abuse of press releases by council leaders, involving not just the logo on top of the press release—but also interviews.
I question whether a code can ban the leader of a council from being party political in interviews. That would be stretching the code. The code should be concerned with corporate decisions—matters concerned with the council as a whole or on behalf of an authority.
The draft code also refers to officers' reports to a council and to committees of a council. That is stretching the code into territory where I foresee enormous problems. Such reports may well refer to exising policies which have long been pursued, yet the code may now inhibit how the council handles them. The code, which will be a fundamental part of the Act, must not encourage mischievous litigation, but, as we said in Committee, some parts of the legislation might well do that. Above all, the code must not inhibit or add to the cost of and make more difficult the day-to-day administration of councils, but, as drafted, the code would affect such day-to-day administration.

Mr. Waldegrave: The subject of these amendments represented my finest hour in Committee when I was defeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). The Galley amendment—rather like the Rooker-Wise amendment—will go down in history as very important, and so it should. We accept that codes of practice should be put before Parliament.
I was a little confused by the Opposition's strategy on these amendments as, if we accept amendment No. 20, we could not accept amendment No. 21. The other place recently debated codes of practice in general and I know that it takes an interest in these matters. It might be right for the code to be debated in both Houses. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax would not want to defend his successful amendment to the point of resisting that addition to it.

Mr. Galley: May I confirm that it was purely as a result of a technical procedural point that the words "House of Commons" were originally put into the amendment?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) mentioned flexibility. It works both ways. We do not want to make it so cumbersome to make minor changes that we get stuck with provisions that get further and further out of date, but I take his point about not tinkering for the sake of tinkering. I am afraid that I am genuinely open-minded about whether every change has to go through the full procedure. I can see pretty strong arguments for not doing that. We accept the principle of scrutiny by Parliament and we shall table amendments in another place to give effect to that.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Bill started out with a variety of criticisms from all sides, although it was agreed that something had to be done about certain abuses in local authorities, and the Widdicombe committee confirmed that. The interim report's principal conclusion was that

statute should prevent publicity for party political purposes at the ratepayers' expense. On that principle, and that principle alone, my colleagues and I unanimously agreed that we should support the Bill.
On behalf of my colleagues, I put four serious criticisms which we wanted the Government to consider, and none of which was recommended by Widdicombe. The first was that clause 2(1)(b) should be deleted, as it went far beyond party political campaigns and dealt with publicity for bodies outside the body politic. The Government have conceded that, and the paragraph has gone.
The second was that clause 2(3) should go. It prohibits the financing of other bodies for publicity purposes. The voluntary sector was horrified by it and many, if not most, members of local authorities of all political parties were horrified. The Government have not amended clause 2(3), so they are threatening the activities of the voluntary sector and those who depend on local government for funding.
The third criticism was that there should be no tampering with section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972. The Government have not moved on that. They have hinted that there may be movement, but they are still trying to restrict what local authorities can do under section 142 to talking about the functions of the authority, not matters relating to the area. There has not beer a concession on that.
Lastly, the Government have allowed the code of practice provision set out in clause 4 to remain, and that is universally found to be unacceptable. I make that one gain for the Opposition, and the Government resisting three substantive attacks. The conclusion is obvious: if the Government are willing to amend the Bill before it finishes its proceedings, they might have our continuing support. We wanted to have something on the statute book but we did not want the Government to ignore the committee that they set up and go far beyond its recommendations. As they have done so, we cannot continue to support them.
Our support was always conditional and always open to the Government backing down in the light of the opposition in the country. If the House were proportionately represented, it would not pass the Bill. Sadly, the minority Government still have a majority of seats so they may be able to succeed tonight. We shall oppose them and continue to oppose them unless they make other concessions that they could and should make because they have over-reacted to something that was not of our making, and arguably not of theirs.
The Labour party often abused the processes of local government. In my constituency and those of many of my hon. Friends—Greenwich, Liverpool, Leeds—it has acted in a way that has brought the Bill before the House. It has caused the Government to legislate in this way. The Government have over-reacted—that is their fault—but let nobody believe that there is not blame to be attached to the Labour party as well. We shall not allow the Labour party to get away with its excesses, but, on the other hand, we shall not allow the Government to abuse the processes of local government in their turn. We are willing to fight for local government to continue to represent the reponsible voice of ratepayers and citizens in Britain. Perhaps that is why we are doing rather better than the other two parties.

Mr. Michie: One often talks about the tail wagging the dog, but the speech by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was extraordinary.
I have been asked not to speak tonight, but I do so mainly because I think that the Bill leaves much to be desired. We are pleased that the Minister conceded various points in the Committee of which I was a member. They are small, but we should be grateful for them.
However, the Bill is unnecessary. There are ways and means of controlling the abuses about which the Government worry. Therefore, I ask them not to continue with the Bill, but to throw it into the dustbin so that we do not have further problems and further amendments throughout the next stages.

Dr. Hampson: The speech by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was a joke. In Committee we noticed that, having given a blessing to the Bill on Second Reading, the hon. Member progressively distanced the alliance from it, and never agreed with any point in the Bill. Now he says that he agrees entirely with what the Government are doing in principle but denies the worth of the Bill, which is extraordinary.
The Bill follows Widdicombe in all but one sense. It expressly prohibits literature of a party political nature. There has been talk about the partisan nature of the tone and scale of some local authority publicity. The Widdicombe committee did not go far enough in its recommendations to meet the problem. It said that the local authorities' powers should be concentrated under section 142 of the Local Government Act 1948, but on section 137 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963, it said that it should be made clear that the powers could not be used for "publicity". The Bill meets the principles of the Widdicombe report except on section 142. In the past two years we have all seen, including the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), a growing abuse by Labour councils of the way in which they are using ratepayers' money for direct party political advantage or indirectly to support causes related to the Labour party.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and I share the problem of the same city council and its abuses. The problem is that the abuses I detailed in the evidence I brought to the Committee will not be stopped by the Bill. Activities that should be allowed to carry on in local government will be stopped by the Bill. The amendments of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, which showed that, have not got through.

Dr. Hampson: That is my main point. I was misled by the outrageous condemnation by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
I believe that the Government have had to tread a delicate line and, on balance, they have managed to do it well, because the Bill stops the worst abuses. However, it may not stop some of the more sophisticated abuses by the more devious Labour councillors. The hon. Member for Leeds, West and I have to live with them. They do not go over the parapet and try to become martyrs as they do in Liverpool, but they are insidiously working away all the time. Also, there are many sensitive areas that the Bill may not properly deal with because it goes too far.
The Widdicombe report drew a distinction between publicity of information on the functions of the council to help the residents of the area and party political information, which is propaganda and campaigning literature. I should like a third distinction in the Bill, dealing with the material produced in the normal course of running a local authority. In many areas —particularly through the code—if we are not careful we will try to stop or control normal administrative routines such as council minutes, circulars and officers' reports. That seems to be unnecessary.
Clause 3(2) defines publicity, and in many ways is at the heart of the Bill. We need to look at such definitions to decide whether the terminology is right. We must decide whether the phrase
any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large
is too sweeping and whether we should use phrases such as "primarily intended for the public at large." We should consider whether we are stretching into a third category of information—that essential to the day-to-day running of the council. That is no one's intention.

Mr. Madden: Last night the noble Lord Stockton in another place delivered a blistering attack on the modern Conservative party. He said that it is now the vehicle for extremist elements who are completely alien to traditional Conservative values. I do not know what the noble Lord thinks of the Bill, but I am sure that he thinks it is shabby, sinister, undemocratic and unwanted. There has been no clamour for the Bill from the public. Postmen have not been rushing to the Department of the Environment in Marsham street with bulging postbags full of letters from the public demanding that the Bill be enacted as a matter of urgency.
The people of Britain are worried about jobs, housing, the National Health Service and schools, where the teachers' dispute has been running for more than a year. The Bill will not create a single job, except a few for lawyers; it will be a paradise for them. They will crawl all over the Bill, seeking to clarify, advise and define. They will tell councillors that they should not do this, that they will be running great risks if they do that. That is the purpose of the Bill— to instil fear, anxiety and uncertainty.
The Bill has come about because the Government are authoritarian and highly centralised, and are dominated by the most authoritarian Prime Minister in living memory. We are told that, when anyone is suggested to her, her first question is, "Is he one of us?" Such an attitude runs through the Government's thinking.
The Prime Minister and the modern Conservative party no longer seek to work with local government. Confrontation is their strategy, and it has been ever since 1979. Now Labour councils are being confronted with cuts, penalties, rate capping, district auditors, surcharges, bankruptcy and disqualification. We have a Government who detest local government. They have abolished councils that they do not like and they are now stopping councillors telling the ratepayers the truth about Government policies. We have a Government who do not like law centres, so they shut them down; a Government who do not like centres for the unemployed, so they seek to shut them down; a Government who do not like


community advice centres, so they seek to shut them down; a Government who do not like voluntary organisations, so they seek to starve them of money.
Those are the organisations that have sought to give the people confidence to fight the cuts in their services, and to campaign for what they want in their local communities. That is why the Government do not like them. That is why the Government are introducing the Bill. It is unwanted and undemocratic. I am sure that they will live to regret it, because the people know that the Government are seeking to move the goal posts. They are trying to silence people whom they do not like, who are giving the people a message that they do not like.
This sinister, shabby, nasty little Bill deserves the contempt that the House will show it tonight. The emptiness of the Chamber while this nasty legislation has been discussed today shows that it is wholly irrelevant to the problems, priorities and anxieties of the people whom we seek to serve.

Mr. Straw: This is a serious Bill which will do great damage to local authorities and their relationship with Government. While it is a serious matter, we have been vastly entertained today by the continual contortions and twisting and turning of Liberal Members as they seek to explain why they voted for the Bill on Second Reading yet, now that it has been improved, will vote against it on Third Reading.
For hon. Members who are not fully apprised of the situation, it is worthwhile repeating some of the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for voting for the Bill on Second Reading, when he used words such as "horrendous", "appalling and extreme", "arbitrary" and "dangerous". That is why the Liberals voted for the Bill on Second Reading. Today, people have to decide why they are voting against it on Third Reading.
I did not mention what the Social Democratic party has been saying, because its members have been absent from the debate. A representative of the SDP, the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), has just turned up. It will be interesting and entertaining to see what SDP Members do.
The reason why the Liberals in Parliament have changed their minds has nothing to do with whether the merits of the Bill have changed, but everything to do with the enormous pressure under which the Liberal party in Parliament has come from Liberal councillors and Liberal News, which said earlier in the parliamentary Session:
How disappointing and inexplicable it was to find Liberal Members trooping in to vote for this deplorable Local Government Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Wareing: Does my hon. Friend not agree that that is in line with the usual hypocrisy that one finds on the alliance Benches? Has he studied the early-day motions, which include one in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) criticising the Government for not funding the arts on Merseyside when he himself was one of the Members who voted for the abolition of Merseyside county council?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Liberals have turned turtle because of the pressure they have been under. They have appreciated the utter inconsistency of their position not only in the House but within their own movement.
In the debate on the rate support grant two days ago, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said:
The Government seem to forget that local government exists to provide services. It does not exist simply as a minor or even a major irritant instituted to interrupt and interfere in the otherwise smooth running of the mind of my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He appears to forget that, even if local government did not exist, the services would still have to be provided".—[Official Report, 20 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 88]
That is a damning statement from a widely respected Conservative Member about the attitude of his Government towards local government.
The Bill also typifies the contempt for local government which, I am sorry to say, Ministers in the Department of the Environment continue to show. They say that their concern is about ratepayers' money not being used for party political purposes. As I have said repeatedly during the debates on the Bill, if that was so, we could agree. Those were exactly the words that were used by the national executive committee of the Labour party in its evidence to Widdicombe.
The Bill goes far wider. It is not just about controlling the use of ratepayers' money for party political purposes. It is about denying local government the right to challenge decisions of central Government and the right to say that what central Government intend to do to local services is wrong. It is about denying Lancashire county council the right to say that it believed that the Transport Act 1985 would do terrible damage to bus services in Lancashire. When Lancashire said that, it had the support of most Conservative councils as well as Labour councils.
Most insidious of all, the Bill is about censorship. The true motives of the Government were exposed when the outline of a code of practice was published which sought not only to control publicity that was paid for but also publicity that came free out of people's mouths: press conference statements and media interviews are to be controlled. The Bill is about gagging opposition. It is about an authoritarian Government led by one woman who seeks to crush opposition, whether it comes from within her own party or from outside it. The number of Conservative Cabinet Ministers who have been kicked out for opposing the Prime Minister is testament to the truth of what we are saying.
We oppose the Bill in this place, we shall oppose it in the other place and we hope to see it defeated.

Mr. Waldegrave: The Bill does several other things as well as regulating local authority publicity. On Third Reading it is worth remembering that. It lays down a date by which local authorities must set a rate, which is important and which has been widely welcomed. It deals with the transfer of local authority mortgages over the heads of the holders of the mortgages; that is important and right.
The central part of the Bill is about publicity. I have been astonished by the arguments from all the Opposition parties. The Labour party's opposition to the Bill has been based on the proposition that there are no abuses and that the existing law would control abuses if there were any. On the other hand, it says that the limitations inherent in this Bill bring to an end freedom of speech in local government. As happens quite often, something in the propositions put by the Opposition is a little awry: the Bill either does something or it does not. We know it limits the


abuses that have grown up in recent years in local authorities, and we know that the existing law has not been capable of doing that. The tricky argument by the Labour party is flawed and wrong.
The sort of abuses we have seen in the last few years would not have been tolerated for one moment by the Labour party. Hon. Members will remember that most awful of all modern British Governments under the present Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. He went off to Washington with the union jack hanging upside down over his head, and Lyndon Johnson said he was the greatest Englishman since Churchill while he praised the American stance in Vietnam. If the GLC, which I think was controlled at that time by the Tories, had covered London with posters caricaturing Wilson and ridiculing his policy, which deserved to be ridiculed, would not the Opposition have thought that that was a misuse of the publicity powers of the GLC? We know perfectly well that if the boot was on the other foot, there would be a lot of caterwauling from the Labour party.
One thing more craven than the Labour party's opposition to this Bill has been the performance of the alliance. It has not been hot, it has not been cold; it has not said yes, it has not said no. The Liberal and Social Democratic parties have been timid. They have wrung their hands and said there are dreadful abuses, but they have taken no practical steps to allow us to introduce legislation to limit those abuses. They have opposed every practical proposition, and I have come to the conclusion that so endemic in them is the spirit of opposition that they do not want action; they prefer to be in a position to complain. If somebody were to put an end to their complaints they would be terrified. They are in the position of the Spartans at the battle of Marathon who prolonged their debate about sending aid to the Athenians for so long that the battle, thankfully for Sparta, was over by the time their soldiers arrived. As usual with the alliance, it is never there on the day when the real battle is being fought.
This Bill is necessary. We would prefer it not to be necessary. We would prefer the old conventions to remain as they do in many parts of the country. Many Labour and Conservative authorities have nothing to fear from this Bill, because they have maintained those conventions. Those authorities which have not do have something to fear and it is right that they should. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 192.

Division No. 44]
[9.52 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Baldry, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Ancram, Michael
Benyon, William


Arnold, Tom
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashby, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Body, Sir Richard


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert





Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harvey, Robert


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brinton, Tim
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hawksley, Warren


Browne, John
Hayes, J.


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayward, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Henderson, Barry


Budgen, Nick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Hickmet, Richard


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Robert


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Holt, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Howard, Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Churchill, W. S.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral, W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irving, Charles


Cockeram, Eric
Jackson, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Conway, Derek
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Coombs, Simon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Key, Robert


Crouch, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knox, David


Dover, Den
Lamont, Norman


Dunn, Robert
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawler, Geoffrey


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John (Pendle)


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fallon, Michael
Lightbown, David


Favell, Anthony
Lilley, Peter


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lord, Michael


Fletcher, Alexander
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCrindle, Robert


Forth, Eric
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fry, Peter
Maclean, David John


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Galley, Roy
McQuarrie, Albert


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Gow, Ian
Malone, Gerald


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maples, John


Grant, Sir Anthony
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry
Marlow, Antony


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Mather, Carol


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Ground, Patrick
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)






Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Moate, Roger
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Rowe, Andrew


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Moynihan, Hon C.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mudd, David
Scott, Nicholas


Neale, Gerrard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Needham, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Nelson, Anthony
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Neubert, Michael
Speed, Keith


Newton, Tony
Spence, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Norris, Steven
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stokes, John


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Osborn, Sir John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Parris, Matthew
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pollock, Alexander
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Porter, Barry
Warren, Kenneth


Powell, William (Corby)
Watson, John


Powley, John
Wheeler, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wiggin, Jerry


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wood, Timothy


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Yeo, Tim


Rathbone, Tim



Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Tony Durant and


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell, Ian


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Ashdown, Paddy
Cartwright, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Thomas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clay, Robert


Barnett, Guy
Clelland, David Gordon


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Beith, A. J.
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Coleman, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Conlan, Bernard


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Blair, Anthony
Craigen, J. M.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Crowther, Stan


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Deakins, Eric


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dewar, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm
Dormand, Jack


Buchan, Norman
Douglas, Dick


Caborn, Richard
Dubs, Alfred


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Eadie, Alex





Eastham, Ken
Meadowcroft, Michael


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Michie, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mikardo, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby')


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Forrester, John
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Foulkes, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Park, George


Freud, Clement
Parry, Robert


Garrett, W. E.
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman
Penhaligon, David


Gould, Bryan
Pike, Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Prescott, John


Hancock, Michael
Radice, Giles


Hardy, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Harman, Ms Harriet
Redmond, Martin.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Rogers, Allan


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheerman, Barry


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Johnston, Sir Russell
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Kennedy, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds, E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Leighton, Ronald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Litherland, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Livsey, Richard
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Loyden, Edward
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tinn, James


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Torney, Tom


Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, James


McNamara, Kevin
Wareing, Robert


McTaggart, Robert
Welsh, Michael


McWilliam, John
White, James


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Marek, Dr John
Winnick, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Woodall, Alec


Martin, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mason, Rt Hon Roy



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Maynard, Miss Joan
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Meacher, Michael
Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Rate Support Grant (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 4) Order 1985, dated 18th December 1985, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we were to debate at the same time the second motion,
That the draft Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1985, dated 18th December 1985, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: Is that with the leave of the House?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Rifkind: We have before us two orders. One is the main rate support grant order, which we debate each year at about this time. The other is the order continuing the scheme of revaluation rate rebates which my predecessor introduced last year to provide a welcome relief to those most affected by revaluation, since there is clearly a close connection between these two orders.
As the House knows, it is this Government's objective to reduce local authority expenditure. Since coming to office we have asked authorities to co-operate in that objective. Some have done so, but increasingly the Government have been forced to bring pressure to bear on authorities, through the level of grant, and in some cases by means of selective action, to achieve those objectives. We still have not achieved a reduction in volume terms in what local authorities are spending. Local authorities in 1985–86 were still planning to spend 1·8 per cent. more in volume terms than they spent in 1978–79. It is worth examining the figures in more detail because of the claims of unacceptable cuts which are frequently made by local authorities.
The main component of local authority expenditure is education. It accounts for 45 per cent. of relevant expenditure, and of course the main part of that —almost 90 per cent. —is school education. For demographic reasons the school population is falling. Between 1978–79 and 1984–85 primary pupil numbers fell by 23 per cent. and secondary numbers by 8 per cent. With the demand for a major component of expenditure falling significantly one would expect expenditure to fall, and to say that one expects that is not to ask for unreasonable cuts.
There have indeed been reductions in education, but only 3 per cent. in volume terms over that period. Without these savings on education, local authority expenditure would not be 1·8 per cent. above its 1978–79 level, but 8 per cent. above it. This is the real measure of the extent to which local authority expenditure has in fact increased from its 1978–79 level, despite all that the Opposition and the authorities claim about unacceptable cuts. The volume of local authority expenditure expressed in real terms is still significantly higher than it was when the Government came into office. The claim that there have been unacceptable cuts is difficult to believe.

Mr. Jim Craigen: How many teaching posts would have to disappear to conform with the Secretary of State's guidance?

Mr. Rifkind: The important point that I emphasise is that, even if the local authorities met the Scottish Office's

Red Book requirements, the pupil-teacher ratio would still be extremely healthy. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is better than it has ever been in the history of Scottish education. That is despite the so-called unacceptable cuts to which he has referred.
Putting aside the relatively minor reduction in educational spending, which is far less than the demographic changes would have implied, the actual volume of other expenditure of local authorities has increased, not by 1·8 per cent. but by 8 per cent., over the past six or seven years. That is very significant.
Thus, the financial background to this order is one of local authority expenditure still above its 1978–79 level, despite demographic factors which make possible expenditure reductions without unreasonable cuts in services. This being so, there remains the need to apply pressure to authorities to spend in line with the Government's plans.
There are, I am glad to note, signs that local authorities are making greater efforts to bring their spending into line with these plans. In 1984–85, 15 authorities budgeted in line with guidelines. In 1985–86 the number doubled from 15 to 30, including over half the regional and island authorities. Clearly this was in part a response to the much more severe grant penalties for 1985–86, of which authorities were given ample warning. The effect of these penalties has also been to force authorities still above guidelines to look closely at their budgets in order to find savings. One region plans to halve its planned overspend. Others are looking closely at ways of reducing or eliminating their overspends. This is good news for ratepayers, in two ways. There are savings in expenditure, and there will be refunds of grant penalty as authorities bring their expenditure nearer guideline at outturn. Authorities can calculate what grant refund they will get, and, together with the expenditure reductions, this should help to keep rates down.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that, if all the rate support grant which the Government have cut from local authorities over the past five years were to be restored, ratepayers in Scotland could have a year completely free of any rate payments? Instead of that, because of the further cuts contained in this order, domestic ratepayers face an average increase of 10 per cent. in 1986–87. Does this not prove to the Secretary of State that his Government are largely responsible, not just for cuts in local authority services, but for rates increases?

Mr. Rifkind: I disagree entirely with that, for one very good reason. The implication of what the hon. Gentleman says is that if central Government kept their contribution to local authority expenditure stable that would somehow help the ratepayers. The evidence does not support that view. For four years the rate support grant contribution from central Government was kept at 68·5 per cent. No change was made, yet during that period local authorities in Scotland increased their expenditure in real terms by no less than £240 million. That is what happened when central Government did not apply pressure through the rate support grant system. When the Government apply pressure, we begin to get results. It may be very sad indeed that it should require that sort of pressure to bring about


the results that we seek, but the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the convention, cannot deny that that is historical fact, and it is something that they should bear in mind.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry to pursue this point, but what the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has just said is what we on this Bench were assured by the COSLA representatives today was the case. They said quite specifically, and in terms, that if the amount of the rate support grant in 1981, which at that time was £1,775 million in present terms, was restored, it would be the equivalent of having a rate-free year for every local authority in Scotland. Is the Minister flatly saying that COSLA is deceiving us?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, it is deceiving the House, for this simple reason. The implication is that if these funds were available the expenditure plans of local authorities would not be changed. If the expenditure plans of local authorities were not changed, it goes without saying that any increased central Government grant would go towards reducing rates. Of course that is right, it has to be true, but from all our experience—and the hon. Gentleman is a fair man—we know perfectly well that when central Government give more in grants to local authorities the increase is rarely passed on to the ratepayer. What happens is that those local authorities which wish to increase their expenditure feel that they can do so quite happily without putting an increased burden on the ratepayer, but at a cost to the taxpayer.
That is not theory, but what has happened in those years when the rate support grant has not been reduced as a percentage. That is the point that I made earlier, and it is a sad fact of life. All that COSLA is saying is that, if all other things are equal, the more central Government pay, the better it is for the ratepayer. Obviously, that is true, but it is not very good for the taxpayer, and it is not a remarkable observation.
My predecessor issued expenditure guidelines for 1986–87 to authorities at the beginning of October. These included an increase of £59 million over the provision originally made in the White Paper. After taking account of the completion of the transfer of two colleges to central institution status, the provision for 1986–87 is 4·3 per cent. ahead of that made for 1985–86. As in each year since 1982–83, guidelines were based on the client group method of needs assessment, but with limits on how far authorities were expected to change their expenditure in one year. My predecessor had particular regard to the problems of authorities with guidelines below assessed need and to the performance of authorities in relation to their present guideline and assessed need. Authorities whose assessed need was higher than their 1985–86 budget were allowed guidelines up to 7 per cent. above what they budgeted to spend this year.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), who is indisposed and unable to be present, asked me to raise a point with the Secretary of State. Perhaps in another debate he will be able to speak for himself. Strathkelvin district council now has new headquarters—Tom Johnston House. Within the guidelines, no allowance has been made for that district council, which means that ratepayers, including my constituents and those of the

Secretary of State's hon. Friend, will be faced with a higher bill. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear that in mind?

Mr. Rifkind: I have not yet received direct representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst). I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is speaking on his own and on my hon. Friend's behalf. There is no doubt that this is a matter that can properly be considered. The administrative costs of a local authority would not normally result in a change in the guidelines, which are based on assessed need. However, the matter will be considered to see what is appropriate.
Every authority that kept within guideline or assessed need this year received a cash increase of at least 0·5 per cent., and no authority was set a guideline more than 1·8 per cent. below this year's budget. There will again be severe penalties for ovespending in 1986–87, but the guidelines are not unreasonable, and I urge authorities to spend in line with guidelines, in the interests of their ratepayers. Failure to spend at guidelines will again lead to severe penalties.
Turning to the rate support grant order, aggregate Exchequer grant for 1986–87 will be £2,008·65 million, including an addition of £3·65 million to take into account the transfer of financial responsibility for list D schools, the grant figure is £100 million more than the figure that my predecessor first announced for 1985–86.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: On the matter of additional resources for list D schools, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some authorities, such as central regional council in my constituency, having received the money, are shutting the door in the face of the list D schools? They are not providing the support that they should be providing but are saying that it is a problem for central Government?

Mr. Rifkind: We are watching with careful interest the discussions that are taking place between regional authorities and the list D schools. Most of the discussions have not yet been completed. I hope that there will be a sensible resolution of the matter to ensure that the needs that are at present met by the list D schools will be accommodated. The Government are making reasonable provision for financial applications. The onus is on the regional councils to obtain a satisfactory outcome in the interests of those who need the provisions of the schools.
I mentioned that the grant figure is £100 million more than the figure that my predecessor first announced for 1985–86. It is £43 million more than the final grant figure for 1985–86 once account is taken of the generous increases in grant made to increase domestic rate relief and offset the effects of revaluation. The 1986–87 grant figure is 56·1 per cent. of relevant expenditure. This is a reduction on the grant percentage in the current year, and it is in order to put further pressure on authorities to bring their spending into line. Authorities claim that cuts in grant merely increase rates, but where reductions in spending can be made, there is no reason why that should be the case. The historical examples that I mentioned earlier prove that point. If all authorities spent in line with the Government's plans in 1986–87, the overall level of rates should fall. There should be no overall increase.
Aggregate Exchequer grant consists of rate support grants and specific grants. The Convention of Scottish


Local Authorities generally prefers money to be allocated to rate support grants rather than to specific grants. This reduces administration costs and gives authorities greater freedom to decide on priorities between services. The existing specific grants were reviewed with the convention, and it was agreed that five grants—list D schools, planning development, town development, sewerage and open space—should be discontinued. The resulting increase in needs element has been distributed in such a way that changes in total grant income for individual authorities are minimised. My predecessor, also with the agreement of the convention, introduced a new specific grant to promote Gaelic. This is part of the implementation of my response to the Montgomery report on the functions and powers of Islands councils. The amount allocated to this specific grant for the first year is £250,000, and I hope that it will provide useful assistance for the Gaelic language.
Rate support grants comprise three elements: domestic element, resources element, and needs element. Domestic element reduces the rate poundage for domestic ratepayers compared with other ratepayers. It was increased massively in 1985–86 from 1p in the pound to 8p, to offset the effects of revaluation. The cost was increased from £14 million to £102 million, largely by the extra grant that my predecessor made available. It is now proposed to reduce domestic element by a small amount from 8p to 7p, reducing the costs to £91 million. This is still a substantial amount. Since domestic element is found from within aggregate Exchequer grant, this means that more grant will be available to help all ratepayers, without any serious effect on the domestic ratepayer.
Resources element compensates authorities which have less than a standard amount of rating resources per head. Resources and needs element have been in the ratio 1:7 for some years. However, since resources element distribution is based on actual rate poundages, it is possible for high-spending authorities to attract more grant by high spending. It is now proposed to reduce the amount of resources element available by reducing the ratio to 1:8. This results in a resources element of £185·2 million.
The largest component of rate support grant is the needs element. The amount payable to each authority is shown in schedule 2 to the order, and appendix E to the report sets out details of the calculation.
The client group method of needs assessment continues to be the basis of distribution of needs element. Full implementation of the method would, however, mean substantial gains and losses for individual authorities. It is, therefore, proposed to set limits on the maximum grant gains and losses for any authority. These limits are 15 per cent. on gains and 7 per cent. on losses. The limits are symmetrical around the 4 per cent. increase in needs element generally. —[AN HON. MEMBER: "Does the Secretary of State know what that means?"]—I shall be happy to explain that, if it would be helpful to the House. I could not have explained it last week, but I can happily explain it tonight.
A number of authorities, mainly small rural districts, are worried that full implementation of the client group method would mean their using all their entitlement to needs element. For that reason, a minimum grant entitlement of £11 per head has been set, subject to the limit on gains that I have mentioned. I understand that this

has been the subject of some criticism, but I would point out that the arrangement applies to district councils only, and that the £11 minimum is a modest amount when one considers that other district councils receive grant of up to £55 a head. As in previous years, Orkney and Shetland have been treated as special cases because of their extremely high rating resources. They have been given the average grant increase over what they received this year.
I mentioned earlier that the order included changes to grant for back years. Rate support grant for 1985–86 is increased by £19·6 million to compensate for interest rate changes and £239,000 as a consequence of the latest police pay award.

Mr. David Lambie: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us information on the level of interest rates that the Government are looking for in the next financial year?

Mr. Rifkind: This is a debate on the rate support grant, and I do not think it would be relevant to have a discussion on the normal national level of interest rates. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that local authorities are compensated for any changes that come about as a result of changes in interest rates, and that local authorities do not suffer if there is a change in interest rates. The Government compensate them for that, and that is right and proper.
Grant penalties for 1984–85 were revised in July this year, restoring £29 million in grant to local authorities because provisional expenditure returns were below budget. The penalties were revised again when final figures were available, and it was hoped that this would show a further reduction in expenditure. Final outturns were above provisional outturns for many authorities, with grant penalties overall standing to be increased by £1·1 million, although some authorities such as Lothian region, had further reductions in expenditure and in penalties.

Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. and learned Member rightly said that this is a highly complex matter. Will he confirm that his civil servants, in making the final determination in these matters, are alleged, if there are discrepancies, to apply the "Athine" formula—"Ach, to hell is near enough"!

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The final decisions are made not, by civil servants, but by Ministers. The hon. Gentleman's final observation is near enough to be correct.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the words of the distinguished civil servant who gave evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in explaining the rate support grant system to Scottish Members of Parliament? When it was put to him that these were subjective judgments, he pointed out that these were objective criteria which, on occasion, might be applied subjectively.

Mr. Rifkind: No doubt the distinguished officials who serve the Scottish Office will apply the most acceptable criteria when they give advice to Ministers. Ministers always accept their advice if it is sufficiently convincing as to the merits of the case.
The Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1985 is I am relieved to say, a much simpler document. The recent revaluation increased the rateable values of some domestic and commercial subjects by considerably


more than the average change. To mitigate the effects of this, my predecessor introduced special relief under the Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Act 1985 for domestic and commercial ratepayers whose new rateable value was over three times more than their old one. Those receiving relief would face large increases in their rate Bills if it were ended next year. My predecessor therefore announced on 3 December that the relief would continue for 1986–87, but at a rate of 75 per cent. The maximum relief on any one property will be £7,500. This order gives effect to that decision. The cost of the relief in 1986–87 will be about £20 million, compared with £26 million this year. I consider this to be a generous continuation of the assistance to the ratepayers most affected by revaluation. While obviously they would have preferred continuation of 100 per cent. relief, I am sure that they will welcome its continuation at 75 per cent. I believe that the Opposition will recognise that as viable assistance to Scottish ratepayers.
Taken together, I consider that these two orders constitute a very reasonable basis for local authority expenditure and rates in 1986–87. If local authorities spend sensibly, there is every reason why rate increases should be low. If they spend in line with guidelines, there will be no grant penalties and the overall level of rates will come down. On behalf of ratepayers, I strongly urge local authorities to follow this course. If they do not, it is the ratepayers who will suffer. I commend both these orders to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I extend my congratulations yet again to the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on his appointment to the Scottish Office. I extend also my condolences, as I see that he is still having some trouble with his notes. No doubt, his reading will improve with time.
The speech by the Secretary of State shows that someone who has understood the subtleties of city government in the root of his previous job cannot necessarily be expected to understand the Scottish rate support grant settlement. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suffering from some difficulties.
A rate support grant debate is not a place for civilised pleasantries. I hope that the Secretary of State will merely accept that we wish him well in his new job. He has taken the post of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), and I notice that he has taken over his speeches as well. I am not sure that that bodes well for the future.
The bare facts are there for every hon. Member to see. The relevant expenditure has increased, I believe, by 3·9 per cent., but I accept that there may be some pleading on the margins. However, I suspect that it has still fallen short of the rate of inflation. It is undeniably true, when one looks at the relevant expenditure in conjunction with the reduction in RSG percentage, that we are left with an unsatisfactory position.
Th RSG has decreased by 1·6 per cent. As that is on the basis of last year's 57·7 per cent., that is a decrease of about 3 per cent. The result is a total cash settlement up by only 2·2 per cent., according to my calculations. It is therefore down substantially in real terms. The only defence for that is that it is perhaps not as dramatically as bad a settlement as in some previous years. It cannot be taken in isolation. We must look at the inheritance of the

Secretary of State—what has happened in the past four or five years. The rate of Exchequer support for local services has been reduced below the danger point, and we are reducing it even further in the order. The House should not accept this in any sense. I very much regret that the Government are railroading through a totally inadequate RSG settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has referred to the RSG settlement. If the 1980–81 percentage is applied to the relevant expenditure in each year, we can assume that between £1·5 billion and £1·7 billion cumulatively would have been available to local government in Scotland. If one applies the 1980–81 percentage to this year, there would have been an additional £433 million.
It is interesting that the Secretary of State made the perfectly valid point that it is perhaps unfair to assume that all that money would have gone to reduce the rates. I accept that a balance would have been struck—no doubt, a varying balance from authority to authority—between improving services and protecting the ratepayer.
The Secretary of State did not for a moment dispute the arithmetic. Undoubtedly, those funds would have been available had it not been for the predatory raid by the Treasury, which has been repeated every autumn in the past five years. The total of this rate support grant is miserably inadequate. A look at the way in which the RSG has been divided shows something that amounts to chaos and confusion.
I was interested to note the Secretary of State's delicate descriptive reference to what happened to the rural resources element. The ratio has been reduced from 1:7 to 1:8. I know that it has happened, but I am not sure why. COSLA certainly did not want it. I understand that the working party on local government finance, which is a joint official working party did not recommend it. It may be a somewhat simplistic approach, but I assume that there is a reason behind the changes. It might be helpful for the Government to tell us what it is.
There have been some strange happenings with the needs distribution formula and something nasty has been happening at St. Andrew's house. The regions have some cause for complaint. I recognise that there will always he difficulties, but the regions seem to have come out of this year's distribution rather badly. The Minister will know that Strathclyde has seen an increase of 1·8 per cent. while the Central region and Lothian have had increases of 0·6 and 0·5 per cent., respectively. Those are small increases when we consider the services that the regions have to support and the impact of inflation.
The districts have come out of the distribution rather better than the regions, but it is interesting to note how the client group approach has been applied. The Scottish Office has done its sums and taken the client group approach, which is supposed to be an equitable and fair method of deciding on need, but it has not liked the results. There have been unintended consequences. The Secretary of State has told us that, when the needs of certain small district councils were assessed, it was decided that they would get nothing from the needs element provision. It has been decided arbitrarily that there should be provision of £11 per head. That has been of enormous help, and I do not complain about any authority receiving help to provide its services. The provision has helped Banff and Buchan, Wigton, Inverness, Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey. A number of small and largely rural authorities have been


helped, and I think that they will be the first to say that it is unfortunate that that has happened at the expense of many of the urban authorities.
If the client group approach is applied, authorities such as Glasgow, Renfrew and Edinburgh emerge with high settlements only to be cut back by the imposition of the 15 per cent. cut-off point. The Minister will probably tell me that such authorities have done very well because they have received 15 per cent., but, on the basis of need and the client group approach, they would have received considerably more. For example, Glasgow would have received £49·5 million, and it has been given only £40·7 million. In that sense, the client group approach has been manipulated to take out the peaks and troughs, but that has led to a redistribution through the formula, which the Government have endorsed, which has gone against the large urban authorities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): During the rate support grant debate that took place last year, the hon. Gentleman complained about the cuts in RSG for district authorities. Is he seriously suggesting that a 15 per cent. increase in the needs element is paltry.

Mr. Dewar: I am saying that if we take the Government's client group approach—presumably the Minister has read the memorandum which has been published to accompany the order—and follow it through, we find that the large urban authorities are receiving less than the undiluted client group approach would give them.
The moral of the story is that the Government do not want to apply the client group approach because they realise that if it is implemented simpliciter there will be unfairness. Why is it impossible to have the client group approach in its entirety in the distribution of the needs element when there is no holding back of guidelines, which are basically the client group approach? The guidelines—

Mr. Rifkind: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I shall allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to intervene in a moment, so that he may receive a briefing from the Under-Secretary of State.
The guidelines are the basis on which the penalties are enforced. The refusal fully to implement the client group approach in operating the distribution formula serves to underline the way in which the section 5 machinery and the general abatement has been adminstered in the past year or two.

Mr. Rifkind: It seems that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my speech with his customary care. If he had, he would have heard me say explicitly that limits have been placed on the extent to which the client group approach will apply to guidelines. There is a maximum increase of 7 per cent. and a maximum reduction of 1·8 per cent.

Mr. Dewar: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to the 15 and 17 per cent. peak and trough in the distribution of the needs element. I shall look at that point, but I believe that my general point holds good. We shall have an opportunity to argue it later. I leave it on record.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Dewar: If I am wrong, many others are wrong, too. I believe in precedent. When I am told by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that I am wrong, I tend to think that I must be right.
As for the Secretary of State for Scotland's point about the education expenditure guidelines, I accept that school rolls have dropped. However, every education authority in Scotland overspent its guidelines in 1984–85. Whether they were loyal Tory authorities or, from he Secretary of State's point of view, unsatisfactory Labour authorities, none of them could meet the guidelines. We have not yet received the outturn figures for 1985–86, but it looks as though exactly the same will happen again. I am told that Grampian will probably overspend by 4 per cent., even though it has remained within the guidelines. That is only one example. I could give others.
Therefore, it can be demonstrated that the education guidelines cannot be attained. The education service, unsatisfactorily funded though it is, is surviving, despite ministerial advice, because it is being financed at the expense of other services in the regions. I understand that if the regions were to meet the 1986–87 guidelines, it would mean a 6·6 per cent. cut, in cash terms, on 1985–86 —a cut of over £78 million. If the Secretary of State believes that such a policy should be implemented, he has scant respect for the crisis in the schools and the crisis of morale that is facing teachers.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No. I am very conscious of the time, and I want to make progress.
It is important to get across the point that we are referring not to money that may or may not be made available for settling the pay dispute but to the general budget for education. We are facing very substantial cuts. Any teacher would say that there are overwhelming problems over the implementation of the 16 to 18-year-old action plan because of the lack of resources.
The Secretary of State often comes forward as the ratepayers' champion. That is a very doubtful claim. We have referred to the cuts that have been made in rate support grant settlements in the past few years. Even a reduction of 1p in the domestic element is, I am told, the equivalent of 2 per cent. on the rates. It will have that impact.
The second order is another example of the hypocrisy of the claim that the Tories are the champions of Scottish ratepayers. The order is designed to provide special help for those who are particularly hurt by revaluation in the domestic sector. The Secretary of State for Scotland was no doubt a horrified spectator when his predecessor shot himself in both feet last year and got into a terrible, panic-stricken muddle. The Opposition remember clearly that in order to defuse the revaluation crisis the right hon. Member for Ayr produced £50 million out of the hat, paraded it, flaunted it and was widely believed to have provided that measure of help for the domestic ratepayer. Then the scheme was unveiled. It provides 100 per cent. relief, but it relates merely to that proportion of the rates that is represented by the excess over an increase of 300 per cent. in rateable value. It was a fraud. The Scottish


Office became the patron saint of poster sites and lock-up garages. As the figures are beginning to show, they are the major beneficiaries.
Whatever rubbish may or may not be spoken tonight, the Secretary of State will agree with me about one fact: that the £50 million turned out to be £25 million or £26 million. The reduction of 100 per cent. relief to 75 per cent. relief means that that figure is further reduced to £20 million. In effect, therefore, the Government are getting two years for the price of one. That should not be a cause for congratulation. I hope that the Secretary of State will look into the causes of the initial concern in his ranks. For example, I remember that the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who has left the Chamber, went public in his constituency and said that there must have been some mistake. The Minister said that it could not possibly be £50 million; that only £25 million or £26 million could be paid out. The Solicitor-General said that he would use his influence, reported the Dundee Courier, to ensure that the whole £50 million was disbursed. We heard nothing more about the Solicitor-General's influence. The Minister should make available the money that the Government advertised.
I should like to raise two small but important matters. First, I understand that the administrative cost of the scheme in the first year was £500,000. As far as I know, no reimbursement was made and there is no intention of making any in the coming year. That is a charge that falls directly on the ratepayers, and it should not.
Secondly, reimbursement for the money paid out has been made retrospectively at the end of the financial year.

Why should it not be done at the beginning, or at least in staged payments? That might be planned. Perhaps the Minister could say something about it.
The consumer is interested in rates and services and the combination of the two. There is no doubt about what has happened to rates under this Administration. They have gone up and up. In 1981, the average domestic rate bill in Scotland was £199. This year it was £329—an increase of 97 per cent. Services have crumbled. Despite the Government's claims about profligacy and extravagance, expenditure has remained largely static, certainly in volume terms.
The inescapable conclusion is that the main determining, and by far the most significant, factor has been the cut in the rate support grant, which has had the cumulative effect that can now be seen in every part of Scotland.
I understand that the Secretary of State will unveil his rating reform package next week. We are deeply sceptical whether the reports are in any way correct. He knows that we regard a poll tax as utterly unacceptable. No doubt we shall carry on that debate when the time comes.
Whatever the reform package might be, until present trends are reversed, until the Exchequer contribution is adequate for the needs of the services that it has to support and until the oppressive legislation that has been put on the statute book is scrapped, the situation will continue to deteriorate. Our objection to the order is that it gives no hope of that reversal and shows no sign of a reprieve. It shows that, apparently, no lessons have been learnt. That is why we shall vote against this settlement.

Sir Hector Monro: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his first speech in his new capacity. He has given us a first-class lead and presented a very good rate support grant.
It seems to be my misfortune, as night follows day, to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

Mr. Canavan: Day follows night.

Sir Hector Monro: I can also see the dawn. The hon. Gentleman's speech reminded me of that old Irish saying, that the man who is not confused simply is not well informed. The hon. Gentleman was even more off the rails than he usually is on the rate support grant.
Tonight is good news night for Dumfries and Galloway. My right hon. and learned Friend announced today the new Dumfries bypass. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) has been so involved and that he followed the recommendation of the regional council and of myself. We therefore had the right line. It is warmly welcomed in my constituency.
The rate support grant settlement is good news too. I hope that we shall consider the housing orders next week, or the week after. Rural areas have at last received fair treatment in the housing revenue account and capital allocations. I hope that in the future we can look forward to relatively low rent increase and further housing developments.
Tonight we are discussing the rate support grant order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Opposition Members do not understand that, in real terms, local authorities are spending more than ever before on providing the services that ratepayers require. There is continual talk of cuts, but the cuts are on the budgets that local authorities would like to have if there were unlimited spending. Hon. Members must recognise that if we had unlimited spending we would be back with the roaring inflation that was bequeathed to us by the Labour Government in 1979. It is because local authorities have that inclination that Governments have to restrict the amount of money available for the rate support grant.
For years I have said, on the record, that I have felt that the formula for the rate support grant—although we are now using the client group method—was unfavourable to the rural areas. Tonight I can say that the trend has at last been substantially reversed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South, who has been much involved in these negotiations. I am glad to see from the statistics that the region that I represent, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), has had a 15 per cent. increase in its need grant. That is particularly welcome. The four districts in Dumfries and Galloway have all had an increase. Annandale and Eskdale are up by 13·5 per cent., Nithsdale by 13·2 per cent., Stewartry by 13·1 per cent. and Wigtown by 13·3 per cent. That is good news for rural areas, and all hon. Members should be glad that at last the trend towards substantial increases in the central belt of Scotland has moved further away, to where the money will be welcome.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman no doubt accepts that the overall cash settlement is up by only 2·2 per cent.,

which in real terms is a substantial cut. If these small rural authorities have done so well, is it not clear that it is at the expense of someone else?

Sir Hector Monro: Yes, and it is about time, too. For a long time I have been saying that we want the rural areas to get fair treatment, and now at last we have it. That is why I congratulate the Government on accepting the argument that I and my hon. Friends have been making for years. With good housekeeping and authorities that are prepared to be careful in public expenditure, there should be no need for an increase in rates. Councils should have enough income to increase their expenditure and still keep the rates down to the level of inflation. Nithsdale has already said that the rates must be up a ha'penny, or 7 per cent. Good housekeeping and a little pruning would mean that they could keep the rate increase to the rate of inflation, or even to nothing.
The relationship between guidelines and needs assessment is moving in the right direction. I am glad to know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been able to keep 75 per cent. of the increase that was obtained last year for ratepayers following the substantial revaluation. That is important, as is the domestic relief at 7p. A year ago it was standing at 1p, it increased to 5p and then to 8p, so my right hon. and learned Friend has done well to keep a domestic relief rate of 7p this year. When councils are careful, they should be nearer to a nil increase than in past years.
There is much criticism from the Opposition about the rate support grant, but they tend to forget that the settlement of 56·1 per cent. is substantially better than the settlement of 47 per cent. in England and Wales. They should also remember that there is a substantial increase in the Scottish settlement, whereas in England and Wales there was a nil increase, or a standstill, for rate support grant.
I hope that this will be the penultimate rate support grant order under the present system. I am glad to know that my right hon. and learned Friend will be presenting new proposals later this month. I am sure that they will be widely welcomed by the public, who will at last see that the Government are determined to sort out te nonsense of rates which has existed since they were introduced many years ago. The sooner my right hon. and learned Friend can introduce the changes, the greater the welcome they will receive.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Local authorities in Scotland are at their wits' end to maintain essential services. To anyone who is aware of the problems they have had to face for the past two years, the idea that it could be improved, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) suggests, by good housekeeping and a little pruning makes one wonder what country he has been living in.
This year's rate support grant makes up only 56 per cent. of the Scottish local authorities' relevant expenditure. In 1976 it amounted to 76 per cent. of relevant expenditure and over 10 years there has been a decrease of 20 per cent. Since the Government took office, control over the action of local authorities has amounted to a virtual strangehold. They have taken powers to claw back rate support grant, to determine rate levels and to determine council house rent increases. We all know that


the Government's formula for determining what is reasonable expenditure is weird and wonderful. I do not wish to cover that ground again. I want to deal with the Government's actions and the effect they are having.
The levels of rate support grant in recent years have not been sufficient to keep up with inflation. In 1984–85, the increase was only 3·1 per cent. In this financial year, the increase is 4·9 per cent. The amount offered for next year represents an increase of only 3·9 per cent. Every year, the level of grant is being cut in real terms.
I have already said that grant has been steadily reduced as a percentage of relevant expenditure. Scottish Office Ministers often say that local government expenditure is in some way excessive and out of control. That is nonsense. In this financial year the local authority budget, after adjustment for clawback, is only marginally larger than it was in 1978–79. The increase has been in the region of 0·5 per cent. When one considers the level of inflation in the past six or seven years, it is clear that local authorities cannot possibly be expected to maintain services at a reasonable level unless they inflict large rate and rent increases upon the population. That is what has happened. It is because of the vindictiveness of the Government that Scottish ratepayers are having a hard time. It is not because of what local authorities are doing. The fault lies with the Government.
On the subject of overall expenditure, it is worth noting that, if all the Scottish local authorities kept within the guideline figures set by the Government for this year, expenditure in volume terms would be 2 per cent. lower than in 1978–79. Is that a realistic proposition? The Government expect the local authorities to bear the brunt of their attempt to keep public spending down, although the Government's spending in certain areas has rocketed. I shall give some examples.
Because of the failure of the Government's economic policies, spending on social security will increase by 25 per cent. between 1983–84 and 1987–88. Over the same period, defence spending will increase by 22 per cent. and spending on law and order by 21 per cent. Taking all Departments into account, the Government's expenditure will increase by 18 per cent. over that period.
The fact is that local government is doing a good job in keeping its spending under control, and the Government are in no position to point the finger at it in that regard. However, because of the Government's policies, local government is being made the scapegoat.
On a different but equally serious point, the level of grant for this year does not show that education authorities in Scotland will be in a better position next year than at present to make an offer to settle the teachers' dispute. It has been said that not one local authority can meet the education guidelines. What has the Secretary of State to say about that? It is very worrying, because none of us wants the dispute to carry on into 1986–87. If the Government have any intention to make extra cash available, we should be told. Otherwise, the prospect is not good.
The Secretary of State referred to the £26 million for the relief of rates. The figure announced at the Tory conference was £50 million for one year. That was the implication. but then the figure was apparently cut in half.
I wish to comment upon one interesting aspect of rate support grant clawback. Apparently clawback money in Scotland goes straight back to the Treasury. In England any such money is redistributed among other local

authorities. Perhaps the Secretary of State can verify or deny that. If that is so, it is pathetic. Not only does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have to carry out the orders of the Prime Minister, but, having done so, he is not allowed to keep any of the spoils.
The previous Secretary of State has now been rewarded for his faithful, lackey-like service by being promoted out of the political graveyard that is the Scottish Office. The new Secretary of State has demonstrated in the past—over the devolution issue for one thing—that he is capable of making up his own mind. However, if he continues to allow Scottish local authorities and the Scottish people to suffer as much as at present, he will be no better than his predecessor.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said that local authorities are at their wits' end to maintain services. I wonder whether that stands up to examination. When the Labour Government were in power, both manpower levels and spending were lower than they are now. During this Government's period of office, local authorities have increased their spending in real terms, and most particularly and unarguably, have increased their manpower levels at a time when the number of pupils has been falling and education is the largest consumer of manpower. That is a measure of the extent to which the local authorities seem not to be at their wits' end.
I shall take Fife regional council as an example, as I know more about it than other local authorities. It is trying to ram a brand new swimming pool down the throat of Kirkcaldy district council, which does not want it. Fife regional council has no business doing that— [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] In case hon. Members are not aware, recreation and leisure are the responsibility of district councils nowadays. The regional council is taking on 100 more social workers. One can see the advertisements in any appropriate newspaper. Although there are fewer pupils and fewer teachers it has increased substantially the education directorate. It is also expanding the strategic planning department. Those are the kind of things that Fife regional council is doing. When the right hon. Gentleman says that councils are at their wits' end to know how to continue services, it does not add up.
I welcome the rate support grant settlement. I was glad to read in a local newspaper that North-East Fife district council was pleasantly surprised at its allocation for next year. I understand that the district council has calculated that the saving to the ratepayer will be 1·7p in the pound because the district council will benefit in the needs element by the addition of 7·1 per cent. compared with what it had last year.
As that high-spending Labour authority, Fife regional council, has said nothing about the settlement, I can only assume that it is content, because it is always quick to complain when something does not suit it. I understand that it will benefit by an increase of about 6·1 per cent. in the needs element. That is perhaps why it has not said anything about the rate support grant settlement this year.
According to the figures I have worked out on the back of an envelope—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—if the expenditure of both North-East Fife district council and Fife regional council is at or anywhere near the guidelines, it should result in a rate reduction for


the ratepayers in my part of the world. I hope we will get that. I am sure that neither of those local authorities will give any credit to a Tory Government if that is the result.
I hope that Fife regional council, at least in this election year, will try to do something to curb its outrageous demands upon the ratepayer and perhaps just for once seek to make a reduction in rates. None of us will complain if the council takes the credit for itself, where it least belongs. It was only last year that it increased the ratepayer's burden by 10p in the pound. In the last 10 years it has moved from being the lowest to the highest spending local authority in Scotland. I welcome warmly the thrust of what my right hon. and learned Friend has done in the rate support grant settlement.
On the whole business of the client group formula, I recognise the desire of everyone to achieve a more objective way of determining the distribution of rate support grant. The client group formula is a useful tool to that end. As the formula has been increasingly used to determine needs and guidelines, and as the guidelines have become increasingly important in determining the distribution of rate support grant, they come close to being a cash limit. It puts a spotlight on the formula, which its perfections may not be able to deal with.
There are dangers in blindly following a mathematical formula. That is recognised by what my right hon. and learned Friend has done in the settlement. [Interruption.] I am sorry that some hon. Gentlemen do not understand that the client group formula is important in the determination of rate support grant. Given the fact that the Government have recognised the need to limit the effect of the mathematical purity of the formula to be fair to authorities such as North-East Fife and Fife region, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider other ways in which the formula can be improved for the future.
One other problem for local authorities as they approach their budgets for the coming financial year is that, in the wake of the revaluation, I understand they will find it difficult to be certain of the exact product of a penny rate. In general that is a problem, but in Fife it will be a particular problem, given the uncertainty about the valuation to be placed on Moss Morran, which is a large, single rateable property. The relationship between the exact product of a penny rate and what I understand is the national average penny rate can have substantial effects on the way local authority finance is determined in the coming year. I hope my hon. Friend will pay attention to that when he is looking at the budgets put forward by local authorities. I thank him for what he has done in making a more just settlement this year than we have seen in recent years.

Mr. David Lambie: This has not been a happy year for Scottish ratepayers and next year will be even worse if this rate support grant order is passed. That is why I will vote against it tonight, as I have voted against every rate support grant order, irrespective of the party in power. I have made that speech before, but there is nothing better than repeating a good speech and showing that some hon. Members vote according to their consciences and not according to a party line.
Local authority independence has been eroded by continual attacks. This order is a continuation of that

attack. During the period of office of this Government, the rate support grant has gone down by 12 per cent. That is a direct attack on the ratepayers of Scotland. My local authority, Cunninghame district council, has managed to control its expenditure on its own services. It is budgeting for an increase next year of only 1·8 per cent., at a time when the rate of inflation is around 5 or 6 per cent. That local authority has done its best to contain expenditure, but it has not been able to control the cost of money.
When fixing its budget last year, the Labour authority in Cunninghame believed in the statement by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that economic policies were succeeding and that interest rates would gradually go down. Cunninghame district council estimated in last year's budget that rates of interest would go down. Now it finds, when balancing the books at the end of the half year, that it is £1·5 million out, not because of any extra expenditure by the council, but because the Government's economic policy is a shambles and in ruins, and local authorities have been asked to pick up the tab.
Not only is the council £1·5 million out—that was the figure I was given last week—but with the increase in rate of interest over the last two days and the increase that will come tomorrow, the authority will face an even greater deficit at the end of the financial year. I asked the Secretary of State what allowance for interest the Government made this year in the rate support grant. He told me that that did not really matter because local authorities would be compensated. I hope his hon. Friend will tell me what allowance within the rate support grant formula was made for rates of interest for the next financial year.

Mr. Ancram: I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman the answer to his question. An interest rate of 11 per cent. has been applied. As in past years, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the aggregate of rate support grant will be revised when actual interest rates are known.

Mr. Lambie: I am grateful for that information. It shows that the Government are estimating that during the next financial year interest rates will average about 11 per cent., yet we know that if the Government carry on with their present policies we shall have another year of high interest rates, and local authorities going to the open market will need to borrow at the rate of 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. There will be another deficit next year when we start to balance the books again. Will the Secretary of State make greater allowances for the increasing rates of interest on all local authorities in Scotland?
Not only has the Secretary of State reduced the percentage of the present rate support grant; he has also dealt with the rate fund contribution to the housing account. Not only will the ratepayers in Cunninghame be faced with substantial increases in rates; according to the figures given for the rate fund contribution of just over £2 million, we are facing rent increases of £2·62 per week. That applies not only in the local authority area but in the Scottish special housing association area which has rent increases of 11·28 per cent. at a time when the rate of inflation is about 5 per cent. At a time when the people who stay in the new towns, especially in Irvine new town, are facing unemployment on a scale that we have never known before, the development corporation has also increased rents, but this time by only 6·5 per cent.
If the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is happy about how his ratepayers will be affected, my


ratepayers and my constituents are not. They will face substantial increases of over £5 a week in rents and rates because of the Government's policies.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dumfries say that he was happy that the Government were going to reform the rating system and introduce a poll tax. I remember that a year ago the hon. Gentleman told us that we did not need to worry about the effects of revaluation because the Government would introduce help in order to do away with the effects of revaluation in Scotland. We know that that has not come about.
When we were dealing with the differential between the valuation in Scotland compared with that in England, the hon. Gentleman said that that would be changed and that Scottish ratepayers would be allowed to make direct comparisons with similar properties in England and Wales. Again, the Government conned us. Now I am receiving letters and representations from the Scottish Rugby Union. a deputation came down yesterday from Kirkcaldy rugby club complaining about the fact that they were conned two years ago, not only by the hon. Member for Dumfries but by the Government.
The former Secretary of State caught himself on a hook. In order to overcome the uproar in Scotland following revaluation last year, he said that he would reform the rating system. The new Secretary of State was not party to that and I hope that he will look at it. In the past, whenever Scotland has gone it alone on local government matters and valuation we have always suffered. We have carried out revaluation nearly every five years in Scotland since 1973 and England and Wales has the sense to stop it in 1973. We know the ratepayers who are paying for that and who are feeling the effects of this continual revaluation of property in Scotland when there was a standstill in England. We know what those effects are.
If rate reform for Scotland is so good, why are they not having it in England and Wales? Why does it take the Cabinet only 20 minutes to decide that it will reform the rating system in Scotland by introducing a new poll tax? All that will happen is that when the Scottish people pay more under the new system, English ratepayers will be walking to the banks to bank their money.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Scotland, for once, may be in the van of innovation, but that is something that the hon. Gentleman seems to resent.

Mr. Lambie: I do not mind being in front when dealing with public investment, reductions in unemployment and extra expenditure on better facilities for education, but I object to being in front if it means that Scotland will be paying more and the English will be paying less. That is the point that I am making. We were conned last year by the Tory Government over revaluation, and we shall be conned again this year if they reform the rating system. The new Secretary of State has a chance to make his name and he should make it by scrapping the proposed system. If the Government are going to make changes, they should do so by giving 100 per cent. Government grant. That is the only way to reform the rating system. The Government should leave local democracy and allow local authorities to decide their priorities locally, and they should not interfere with the amount of money that they give.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: As the report from COSLA said, last year was not a happy one for Scottish ratepayers. This year looks a good bit better. I am pleased that the Government are retaining relief for domestic ratepayers, irrespective of the fact that it is lower at 75 per cent. We were promised £50 million. We spent £26 million last year. We shall spend £20 million this year. Does that mean that we will have two years for the price of one? Is that a good form of accounting?
I was pleased that this year I did not receive the same volume of protests about the rate support grant as I received last year. I appreciate the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend has been influenced by the vigorous representations that he has received from my district councils. I hope that those vigorous representations included mine. It seems to have paid off for the Renfrew and Inverclyde district councils because my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government have done nicely by us with the needs element, as both councils have achieved the maximum gains available. I notice that they are moving much closer to the guidelines, which must mean that they are indulging in better housekeeping.
The COSLA document this year was much more restrained than last year. That is a welcome change. There is a curiously worded passage in the document. It exhorts us to recognise local government's achievements, as if local government were an endangered species, instead of a greedy and burgeoning one.
A covering letter to the report states that the Government should not interfere in local government, as if we were in the process of disturbing the balance of nature by doing so. At the same time, it asks for our support in force-feeding funds to local government which seems to me a curious paradox. It is time that local government in Scotland accepted the need to abide by its creator's plans, though it may be a matter of regret to it.
I have said in the past that the Government have been a bit tough on local government, but I have never disputed the need for tighter controls of public expenditure, principally because there was too great a degree of uncertainty in the annual round of financial adjustments which, I believe, caused unnecessary friction between the parties concerned. Co-operation between the two layers of government is very desirable, and is something at which each in turn should aim. It has, however, always been a sad feature of the existing system that the public duty to call local government to account has had to be assumed by central Government, to the detriment of local government, despite its support for the ratepayer.
We are all extremely anxious to know what will happen next Tuesday with the advent of the Green Paper. I do not believe that it will necessarily lead to a restoration of bygone levels of rate support grant, but I think I can safely assume that the basis of calculation will be linked with a wider and more equitable spread of financing from the public. I hope that the new-look ratepayer will be freed from what is tantamount to an élite status. Ratepaying has become a hallmark of material success, or, rather, mythological material success. This is clearly nonsense for those on fixed incomes.
In thanking my right hon. and learned Friend tonight for what he has done at district level, I am conscious of the fact that there are some critics who will never be satisfied, but I am putting on record the fact that our


Conservative Government have acknowledged the needs of my constituents, at any rate, even within the bounds of restraint.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Listening to the contributions from the three Tory Back Benchers, and to the tenor and substance of the orders that the Secretary of State seeks to have passed by the House tonight, I find it very sad that these demoralised troops have at their head a new general, who has apparently decided that it is in the best interests of both the Scottish Office and Scotland as a whole for the war of attrition with local government to continue. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find, in many of his other policies as well as these, that the recent indications of public opinion in Scotland, showing the alliance in second place and the Conservatives languishing at the bottom of the poll, will be reflected in the ballot box at the next general election.
Turning to what the new Secretary of State is proposing tonight, on the issue of the guidelines, it is apparent—[Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is an absolute expert on Scottish politics; he is geographically well placed to be so.
The first difference that distinguishes these ventures, as indeed the Opposition generally, from the Government is that—[Interruption.] I think that there would be more respect for the hon. Gentleman had he bothered to be here during the debate—the assessment of needs locally is surely a fundamental priority and principle of local government. The way in which the guidelines have been administered by the Scottish Office has done much to erode that principle and, therefore, to erode local government in practice.
On revaluation, the £50 million relief package announced last year by the Scottish Secretary has, as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) pointed out, been shown to be nothing more than £25 million in two lots, spread over two years. The effect of that, when we add the clawback by the Scottish Office from local authorities of £126 million last year, makes it an exercise in fraud for Scottish Office Ministers to try to pose as friends of Scottish ratepayers.
The Green Paper, which we expect shortly, gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to break new ground. He may feel that his predecessor has handed him a poisoned chalice in that respect. If he is to break new ground and go it alone without England and Wales, he would be well advised to take advantage of the computerised Inland Revenue system, and restore accountability to local authorities by coupling both greater financial autonomy through local income tax with reform of the electoral system through proportional representation. That is what he should do, if he wants to be radical and innovative. If he does that, he will have our support. The Saatchi and Saatchi so-called community charge, which is a poll tax under another name, is something that we would not support. In the same way, we shall not support the orders tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): We are all interested

to hear the alliance when it produces its policies, and, although it took only 10 seconds to deliver, we heard something purporting to be a policy tonight. I found it difficult to hear, but I thought I heard the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) say that the alliance would take second place in Ross, Cromarty and Skye. We shall look forward to that.
Owing to the shortage of time, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not answer the debate in detail. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) and for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) for their welcome to this year's settlement. Hon. Members may remember that last year there was a great deal of anxiety on conservative Back Benches. Obviously, this time the settlement has operated more fairly in respect of the district councils about which my hon. Friends were worried last year.
What fascinated me about the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was that last year he asked us to give help to the authorities that have received help under this settlement. Last year he was critical of the scale of grant movements, and he told us that we were moving too fast towards the client group approach on grant distribution. One year later, when suddenly he finds that his strictures, if not listened to, have been applied in the new settlement, he changes his tune. He now accuses us of political bias. Those who have gained by the maximum limit of 15 per cent. are headed by Midlothian, Edinburgh and Glasgow, which are not Conservative administrations as far as I know. As the hon. Gentleman represents a Glasgow constituency, I am surprised to hear him complaining that a 15 per cent. increase in rate support grant is insufficient.
More interesting, the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that we should apply the client group approach for grants because it would give Glasgow more. It would have other interesting effects. Looking at the list of authorities still well above the client group approach, this year Cumnock and Doon district council lost 7 per cent. on its needs element, but it is still 159 per cent. above its client group for grant purposes. Following the hon. Gentleman's argument, he would expect that grant to be reduced by that amount in future. Other councils will be interested to hear his argument. Stirling is 127 per cent. above client group for grant, Aberdeen 105 per cent. and East Lothian 112 per cent. All those authorities and West Lothian would lose a considerable amount of grant if we adopted the hon. Gentleman's strictures. It was precisely because we have tried to avoid such reductions and variations that we have fixed the limitations, which the hon. Gentleman criticised.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rate relief order is based on a formula, and its cost is calculated on the basis of those who qualify under it. He asked about the payments that were made. They were staged this year, and will be staged again in future.
The hon. Member for Garscadden will have to wait until next week to find out about the rate reform suggestions. It is clear from what we have heard that if there is one part in the Chamber that has no intention of reforming the rates in any way. it is the Labour party. That is because the existing rating system suits high-spending Labour councils. It will never be in the interests of the hon. Member for Garscadden to reform the rates.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 180.

Division No. 45]
[11.35 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Forth, Eric


Alexander, Richard
Franks, Cecil


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Amess, David
Freeman, Roger


Ancram, Michael
Fry, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Gale, Roger


Ashby, David
Galley, Roy


Aspinwall, Jack
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gow, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, Harry


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gregory, Conal


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bellingham, Henry
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bendall, Vivian
Grist, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grylls, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Body, Sir Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harris, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Harvey, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Bright, Graham
Hawksley, Warren


Brinton, Tim
Hayes, J.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayward, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John
Henderson, Barry


Bruinvels, Peter
Hickmet, Richard


Bryan, Sir Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Buck, Sir Antony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Budgen, Nick
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bulmer, Esmond
Holt, Richard


Burt, Alistair
Howard, Michael


Butcher, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral, W)


Cash, William
Hunter, Andrew


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jackson, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cockeram, Eric
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Coombs, Simon
Knowles, Michael


Cope, John
Knox, David


Cranborne, Viscount
Lamont, Norman


Crouch, David
Lawler, Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Lee, John (Pendle)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dover, Den
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Lester, Jim


Dunn, Robert
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Durant, Tony
Lightbown, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lilley, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Favell, Anthony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fletcher, Alexander
Maclean, David John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major, John


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malone, Gerald





Maples, John
Powley, John


Marland, Paul
Proctor, K. Harvey


Marlow, Antony
Rathbone, Tim


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Mates, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Maude, Hon Francis
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Rowe, Andrew


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Moate, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Monro, Sir Hector
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Silvester, Fred


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Speed, Keith


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stern, Michael


Mudd, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neale, Gerrard
Stokes, John


Needham, Richard
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Norris, Steven
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Osborn, Sir John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Parris, Matthew
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Watson, John


Pawsey, James
Yeo, Tim


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pollock, Alexander
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Porter, Barry
Mr. Ian Lane.


Powell, William (Corby)





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Coleman, Donald


Alton, David
Conlan, Bernard


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Ashdown, Paddy
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Ashton, Joe
Craigen, J. M.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Crowther, Stan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barnett, Guy
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Beith, A. J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bell, Stuart
Deakins, Eric


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dobson, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dormand, Jack


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas, Dick


Blair, Anthony
Dubs, Alfred


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Boyes, Roland
Eadie, Alex


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bruce, Malcolm
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Buchan, Norman
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Flannery, Martin


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell, Ian
Forrester, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Clarke, Thomas
Garrett, W. E.


Clay, Robert
George, Bruce


Clelland, David Gordon
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Godman, Dr Norman


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Gould, Bryan


Cohen, Harry
Hamilton, James (M'well N)






Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Nellist, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Brien, William


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
O'Neill, Martin


Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Parry, Robert


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Penhaligon, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Redmond, Martin.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Kennedy, Charles
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robertson, George


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Lambie, David
Rooker, J. W.


Lamond, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Leighton, Ronald
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ryman, John


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Edward
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McTaggart, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds, E)


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Martin, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Maynard, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Michie, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mikardo, Ian
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Torney, Tom





Wallace, James
Winnick, David


Wareing, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Welsh, Michael



White, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon A.
Mr. Don Dixon and


Wilson, Gordon
Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 4) Order 1985, dated 18th December 1985, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

RATE SUPPORT GRANT (SCOTLAND)

Resolved,
That the draft Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1985, dated 18th December 1985, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, dated 22nd November 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
That the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1985, dated 20th November 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
That the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, dated 29th November 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Maude.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Merchant Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]

Mr. Dick Douglas: Before dealing with the subject of this Adjournment debate, may I say that I understand that the Minister who is to reply to the debate has been elevated to Minister of State. I hope that that augurs well for the quality of the reply that I shall receive.
I propose to raise the subject of the implications for the United Kingdom merchant service of the decision by British Petroleum Shipping to end direct employment of its seagoing personnel. This is the latest and one of the highest profile issues to affect the viability of the United Kingdom's merchant shipping capacity. The issues involved affect the Government's role as a shareholder of the parent company. Despite their tendency to privatise, the Government still have a 31·7 per cent. holding in British Petroleum. However, they show an apparent lack of concern for strategic and conventional merchant shipping and for the need to maintain highly skilled seafarers. They also show a lack of concern for the maintenance of good industrial relations.
The White Paper, "The Falklands Campaign: The Lessons", referred to the crucial role of the Merchant Navy. Eight of the ships owned by British Petroleum went to the Falklands. I understand that two others were involved but did not go to the Falklands.
The Defence Select Committee, of which I am a member, examined these issues and reported in May 1985. We were anxious about the availability of merchant shipping to meet possible defence needs. I shall not detain the House by quoting the report extensively, but paragraphs 15 to 17 are crucial and concern registration. Paragraph 15 says:
In our view potential legal and political difficulties may make it unwise to rely on the total which the Department of Transport believes to be available for requisition.
We drew attention to the disparity between what the Department thought was available in times of emergency and shipping strictly under the United Kingdom flag.
Since 1975, there has been a continued diminution in the size of the United Kingdom flag fleet. I am relying not on statistics made available to the Select Committee but on the General Council of British Shipping review of 1985. In December 1975, there were 1,614 United Kingdom-owned and registered ships of 500 gross registered tonnes and over, and deadweight tonnage of 50 million. In December 1980, that had fallen to 1,141 ships or 35·6 million tonnes deadweight. It fell again to 647 ships or 16·6 million tonnes deadweight, by June 1985. That is a dramatic decrease which should worry us all.
In their wisdom, the Government commissioned a report from the Seagroup—part of Lloyd's of London Press Ltd. —which gave projections of the United Kingdom flag fleet from 15984 to 1992. I shall not bore the House with the statistics. I simply want to know whether the 30 BP ships that are to be manned out to three agencies in particular are in the Seagroup report? If they are, BP Shipping's action undermines the report's view about the availability of ships in times of emergency.
Training suitable manpower also worries us, but I shall now consider good industrial relations. I appreciate that

there is some merit in the company's view. It makes the claim, in a press release, that, by opting for agency manning and taking other actions, it will be able to match more closely the competition of independent operators However, this decision, announced to the press on 8 January, was not one that had had a long period of gestation and consultation with the trade unions. I am reliably informed that the trade unions received this information by letter just minutes before it was announced to the press. That is not the behaviour that I would expect from any industrial company of any magnitude, and certainly not one in which the Government are a major shareholder.
I am not negotiating for the National Union of Seamen or the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers. However, I am sure that the unions, having taken cognisance of the fact that the company had lost £160 million in the past five years, would have been alive to the company's difficulties and only too ready to sit round the table to try to reach a mutually advantageous arrangement.
It is surprising that the company has gone for manning agencies. It has produced some figures showing the difference in cost. I quote from table 10, in a report issued by the International Transport Federation, but with figures issued by BP itself. It shows that there can be considerable cost saving from United Kingdom officers and ratings, including pension and social security payments. The cost per 225,000 tonnes dead weight tanker would be £790,000 a year.
The report also gives some agency manning figures, which are worth examining. A Filipino company would cost £450,000 per ship. One United Kingdom manning company would cost £423,000, another United Kingdom company £470,000, and yet another £554,000. Therefore, if BP wants to go for manning companies, why does it not discuss with the unions the possibility of going for United Kingdom companies? Why is BP going for the company on which it has decided? I severely disapprove of BP Shipping's decision. I believe that it has gone to manning companies so that it can directly attack the trade unions.
I quote from a document issued by Dorchester Maritime Ltd., one of the companies suggested by BP. Clause 8, on industrial relations, says:
The Seafarer undertakes not to involve any industrial organisation in any dispute arising from the terms of this contract or arising from any practices on the vessels without first consulting the Company either by telex, telegram or letter and allowing the Company 30 days in which to give written replies. Further should any vessel be boycotted through any action by an industrial organisation or any of their affiliates, the Seafarer shall not assist or recognise such industrial organisation as having any authority or control over the Company, the vessels or the crew onboard and will act accordingly.
That strenuous provision effectively prevents a trade union from operating on behalf of its members. I am reliably advised that that clause is against the spirit and intention of convention 98 of the International Labour Organisation, to which I understand the United Kingdom Government are a signatory.
Dorchester Maritime Ltd. also states that the seafarer has to agree
to provide his services to the Company on any nominated vessel trading on a worldwide basis. The Company has the right at any time to assign and/or transfer the Seafarer from one vessel to another.
The intention is that, although British Petroleum Shipping will continuing to own the vessel and it may be


under the United Kingdom and/or British flag—there are important strategic, defence and other distinctions—there is nothing to prevent such a seafarer from being transferred to vessels flagged by foreign Governments or companies. There are severe implications for the control of manpower in the future.
The legal basis of the document is extremely questionable. It says:
This agreement shall, in all respects, be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of Bermuda and in the event of any dispute between the parties howsoever arising the Bermuda court shall have exclusive jurisdiction.
I am reliably told that in other agreements, where the parent company is registered in Switzerland, the law applying will be that of Switzerland.
The Minister has some severe points to answer in the debate. We know what has happened to the British flag. We know what has happened in terms of manpower and training. We see from the evidence given to the Select Committee by the British Maritime League that since 1974 there has been a loss of 100 vessels and 5,000 seafarers per year. Those are dramatic declines. We are concerned about the availability not just of manpower but of highly skilled and trained manpower. It is not sufficient just to man the ships, because, as we all know, ships are getting more complicated and the training of cadets and others must be taken into consideration.
Were the Government informed prior to the actions of BP Shipping? If so, what was the Government's response? Did they give any view of the strategic implications or the implications for manpower? What is the effect of those changes in terms of flag, management and crews on the Sea group report? What are the training implications of the decision? What are the Government going to do about British shipping? Are they bringing in proposals or are they leaning on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the interval between now and the Budget, to correct some of the damage that the Government's fiscal policy has done to British merchant shipping? What views do the Government express on the abrogation of convention 98 of a vital United Nations organisation, the ILO? If the Minister checks, he will see that seven of those ships went to the Falklands. Those ships were manned by British seafarers—all good men and true. A little over three years ago, the ships and the men went to the Falklands in what the Government considered to be the national interest. Are the Government content to ask those seafarers to sign such an odious, despicable agreement? The National Union of Seamen and the other unions require an answer tonight. That is vital. I earnestly await the Minister's reply.

Mr. Roger Stott: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the agreement of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and of the Minister to intervene?

Mr. Stott: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) for allowing me to intervene briefly in this important debate.
Notwithstanding the tremendous contribution that my hon. Friend has made to the debate, I am sure that he and

I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), agree that this is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with a major issue concerning our British merchant fleet. It is a tragedy that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West has had to raise such an important issue on the Adjournment of the House. It is an indictment upon us that we are debating it in a quarter of an hour, in a Back Bencher's time on the Adjournment.
All that I wish to say in my brief intervention from the Opposition Front Bench is that we are wholly dissatisfied about the way in which the matter has been dealt with. My hon. Friend has raised many important questions, which the Minister will have about 10 minutes to answer. That is not his fault; it is the fault of the procedures of the House.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): It is the hon. Gentleman's fault.

Mr. Stott: It is not my fault. We are discussing an important issue in an unsatisfactory way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West told the Minister of State that he is in possession of a document provided by one of the management agencies that presumably will take over one of our major fleets—British Petroleum Shipping, in which the Government have a major shareholding. It is wholly unsatisfactory in terms of industrial relations and manning agreements and in regard to the law. If British seamen have any dispute with the company, their only recourse to justice is by going to a court in Geneva. If the newly appointed Minister of State tells me that he is satisfied with that way of conducting our business—asking seafarers of this great maritime nation of ours to seek recourse in the courts of Switzerland—we have come to a pretty poor pass.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I give notice to the Government that we shall find a more appropriate opportunity to return to the subject.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) deplored the fact that this matter was not given more than half an hour in which to be debated. There is ample opportunity, if the Opposition wish, to use some of the time at their disposal for this purpose. If they genuinely feel as strongly about it as the hon. Gentleman suggests, no doubt he will make an opportunity to follow up the matter in that way. In any case, he has shortened the amount of time for me to respond to the debate.
It is perhaps unusual for a Minister to welcome the opportunity of a debate on a commercial decision by a private company, but the issues raised by the present case are of national interest, and it is appropriate that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) should bring them to the attention of the House.
First, let me clear out of the way the red herring of British Petroleum being a company with a large Government shareholding. It has been the policy of successive Governments, of all parties, not to use their rights as ordinary shareholders to intervene in the company's commercial decisions. We have made no change at all in that.
British Petroleum Shipping gave prior notice to the Government, at separate meetings with the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of


Energy, of the announcement about its future operations, which it made on 8 January. My understanding of the situation is that after losses of £20 million in each of the last two years, and as much as £160 million over the last five years, BP Shipping is to hand over the responsibility for manning its bulk fleet of 30 vessels—13 crude carriers, 16 product carriers and one LPG carrier—to three international agencies, but the vessels will remain under the management and operational control of BP Shipping.
It is also expected that many of the vessels currently United Kingdom registered will gradually be transferred to Bermudan registry, that is, they will continue to fly the British flag. [Interruption.] BP's specialist fleet of offshore support vessels will remain under United Kingdom registration, with manning in the hands of a United Kingdom agency. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will stop interrupting from a sedentary position, he will find that I shall deal with the points if I have time.
BP Shipping's 1,690 seagoing staff will be given early retirement and redundancy terms but will be offered jobs by the manning agencies. Apart from those who choose to leave the sea, it is expected that most seafarers will continue to serve in BP's fleet. BP Shipping's reason for taking these steps is the simple one of survival. Despite reductions of more than 50 per cent. in ships and staff since 1980, it has continued to make losses at the rate of £20 million per year in the last two years. It has found the operation of the two non-BP-crewed vessels that it has had on the Bahamian registry to be satisfactory, and £350,000 per ship per year cheaper. With such savings, it has a chance of matching the competition of independent operators more closely and operating profitably in the long run. Without them, it does not. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West must recognise that the fundamental choice is between having vessels crewed in a way of which he does not approve and having no vessels at all.
The differences in operating costs arise because for its own crews BP has to pay national insurance contributions, train cadets, make contributions towards pension schemes and, because of substantial leave entitlements, employ considerably more seafarers than are actually at sea at any one time. Manning agencies outside the United Kingdom are likely to have to make much smaller welfare payments to the state, they incur no training or pension costs, and directly at least they do not pay for leave. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would stop interrupting from a sedentary position, I should be able to reply more clearly to his hon. Friend.
The move to agency manning will not itself affect BP Shipping's plans for the growth of its offshore support operations. The continued existence of a pool of BP marine expertise will also allow the expansion of the management and maintenance services which BP Shipping offers other shipowners and shore-based industries.
Of course, there are some aspects of the move that are of considerable concern. The loss of vessels from the United Kingdom register—even to a dependent territory register—is a matter of some regret. The ships remain no less an asset in time of war—and I shall revert to this—but the decline of our registered tonnage tends in time to reduce our influence in the conduct of maritime affairs. To the seafarers themselves it is, of course, a matter of real significance. They are faced with the loss of a range of benefits carefully negotiated in happier days,

but the alternative for most will be no employment at all at sea, and I understand that the overall remuneration package that will be offered to them is viewed by many of them as attractive.
What other problems does the change involve? There is one aspect that gives us cause for special concern—the implications for the future training of United Kingdom merchant seamen and officers. BP Shipping has over the years made an outstanding contribution to the maintenance of the corps of United Kingdom seafarers, but it is not realistic to expect any commercial company to carry the burden of training on behalf of wider interests.—[Interruption.]
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue. He will not accept yes for an answer. I agree with the point that he made earlier about the problems of training. The closure of BP Shipping's training facilities comes at a time of increasing anxiety over the future supply of men for the United Kingdom merchant marine. Management agencies may be able to meet today's demands for United Kingdom officers and men, but they are not themselves engaged in training, and we have to ask ourselves whether they will necessarily be able to find British replacements as ex-BP seafarers come up to the age of retirement. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I have just two minutes left and I want to answer the questions that he asked.
In the longer term, this is an issue of significance for the defence of the country and as well as for standards in the industry generally. My Department, together with the Ministry of Defence and the General Council of British Shipping, has begun to look into the availability and training of seafarers, and this decision by BP Shipping means that particular attention will read to be given to training.
I should like the House to be quite clear that the fact that over a period BP Shipping will be transferring bulk carriers to the Bermuda registry has in itself no direct implications for defence. These vessels will remain under the ownership and control of BP and will be available for requisition in time of tension or war by use of the Royal prerogative as readily as if they had remained on the United Kingdom register. These vessels will be on the Bermuda register, but will continue to fly the United Kingdom flag.
The company has made it clear that no change in the pattern of its trading operations is contemplated. It will continue to operate in the north-west Europe area, and will remain available for defence purposes should the need arise. Bermuda-registered vessels are required to have United Kingdom citizens as senior officers and, as we know, BP Shipping hopes that sufficient other members of the crews will accept the new employment terms to ensure that British crews continue to man these vessels as at present.

Mr. John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is reading a press release.

Mr. Mitchell: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that I am reading from a press release. His constant interruptions are causing me to have difficulty in reading my own writing.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Seagroup report included these BP vessels. The answer is yes, but of course the vessels will remain fully available in the circumstances


covered by the Seagroup report. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that the vessels will fall into a category which has been identified as likely to be in relatively short supply for defence support purposes. The Ministry of Defence—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.